Back to Crafty Games Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 01, 2014, 03:27:53 AM
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Welcome to the Crafty Games Forums!

Note to New Members: To combat spam, we have instituted new rules: you must post 5 replies to existing threads before you can create new threads.

+  Crafty Games Forum
|-+  Products
| |-+  Spycraft Third Edition
| | |-+  Sletch pontificates on gun combat in SC3
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Sletch pontificates on gun combat in SC3  (Read 11004 times)
TheTSKoala
Control
******
Posts: 2423



View Profile
« Reply #45 on: April 01, 2012, 06:35:22 PM »

Now see.. going to go out on a limb here.. but I see the Semi-Auto 12G keeping people down more of a "Threat" action than I do suppression / covering fire.  When you put the Benelli M4 against an M2 Browning.. the Benelli M4 is using it's capability to rip your arm off to keep you down, where the Browning is literally dumping something along the lines of 15 rounds per second into your general area.
Might want to use an AK or AR instead of Ma Deuce, she is more threatening than a shotgun for many hundreds of yards.  Just sayin'.   Wink

That said, I can see pinning one opponent in place being a Threaten action that does not require much ammunition.  (In paintball, where get shot does not entail injury, one paintball hitting someone's cover every few seconds does convince them to keep their heads down.)

Hey.. if you're gonna go crazy... go BIG and Crazy!  But yes.. an Assault Rifle would have been a better fit vs the Machine Gun.. ..but.. ya know.. . lol.
Logged
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 7031


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: April 01, 2012, 07:04:23 PM »

After consulting wikipedia on the matter, I have to ask.  What about the existing cover mechanics doesn't satisfy you in this regard?

This isn't itended as an insult, but that you had to look it up and ask that question means this will be hard to explain.

Defilade is fine so I suppose should have said versus instead of and. The problem is that enfiladed positions give an attacker an enormous advantage due to the relative positions of the weapon and the targets. Primarily because if you miss high or low, which is much easier to due then missing left or right, you're still likely to hit something.  Also, far fewer of the targets weapons can be brought to bear on you because the enemy's positions are between them and you.

The only handy way off the top of my head would be tracking each shot for deviation. And weighting it to ensure heavier de iation along the axis of fire opposed to across it, but that's a nightmare which.will make combat take forever.

Also, as written there is no particular advantage to setting up an L or V ambush over a linear one, primarily as the rules don't consider the enfiladed targets flanked.
Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
TheTSKoala
Control
******
Posts: 2423



View Profile
« Reply #47 on: April 01, 2012, 07:09:12 PM »

After consulting wikipedia on the matter, I have to ask.  What about the existing cover mechanics doesn't satisfy you in this regard?

This isn't itended as an insult, but that you had to look it up and ask that question means this will be hard to explain.

Defilade is fine so I suppose should have said versus instead of and. The problem is that enfiladed positions give an attacker an enormous advantage due to the relative positions of the weapon and the targets. Primarily because if you miss high or low, which is much easier to due then missing left or right, you're still likely to hit something.  Also, far fewer of the targets weapons can be brought to bear on you because the enemy's positions are between them and you.

The only handy way off the top of my head would be tracking each shot for deviation. And weighting it to ensure heavier de iation along the axis of fire opposed to across it, but that's a nightmare which.will make combat take forever.

Also, as written there is no particular advantage to setting up an L or V ambush over a linear one, primarily as the rules don't consider the enfiladed targets flanked.

..in his down time.. Krensky substitute teaches at War Colleges...
Logged
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 7031


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: April 01, 2012, 07:12:09 PM »

No, but I was the only non-ROTC student in my military history and theory class (odd elective choice, I know).
Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
tfwfh
Operative
****
Posts: 443



View Profile
« Reply #49 on: April 01, 2012, 07:16:12 PM »

I certainly see the difference, but I'm not sure it's relevant in the situations that spycraft is trying to model.  Generally, you're attacking single targets, rather than areas or positions as would be the case in larger conflicts.  Although, I suppose if you wanted to take a stab at it anyway, you could allow guns with a full auto mode to attack a line of squares.  Similar to strafe, but without the stacking penalties, or at least with smaller penalties.  And of course only against targets or squares that don't benefit from cover.

I feel like the general outpacing of attack bonuses vs defense bonuses does most of the work in making not having cover roughly equate to flanked in the real world tactical sense.  The direct opposite situation that spycraft currently requires is just even worse, forcing the defender to split their attention 180 degrees and leaving them particularly vulnerable (aka sneak-attackable).
Logged

Who's the more foolish, the fool or tfwfh?
MilitiaJim
Control
******
Posts: 4317



View Profile WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 01, 2012, 07:23:51 PM »

One thing I'd like to see but can't figure out how to do smoothly and elegantly is covering enfilade and defilade fire.
Feat, Forte at least, to use the weapon as a mortar?  An area effect weapon for targets over There.
Logged

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."  ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool  in the killer's hands.")
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
Krensky
Control
******
Posts: 7031


WWTWD?


View Profile
« Reply #51 on: April 01, 2012, 07:31:48 PM »

I was refering mostly to direct fire weapons. Why the book stuck you (the machine gunner) along the axis of the enemy, rather then accross it in a L shaped ambush.

Like I said, other then checking to see if misses hit someone in front of or behind your target I don't have much.
Logged

We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming. - Werner von Braun
Right now you have no idea how lucky you are that I am not a sociopath. - A sign seen above my desk.
There's no upside in screwing with things you can't explain. - Captain Roy Montgomery
MilitiaJim
Control
******
Posts: 4317



View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: April 01, 2012, 09:08:29 PM »

Like I said, other then checking to see if misses hit someone in front of or behind your target I don't have much.
That's the GM's call to make a Strafe easier because of good positioning.

(I was thinking of the beaten zone.)
Logged

"Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est."  ("A sword is never a killer, it's a tool  in the killer's hands.")
- Lucius Annaeus Seneca "the younger" ca. (4 BC - 65 AD)
hmjesus
Recruit
*
Posts: 12


Sletch's Faceman Extraordinaire


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: April 30, 2012, 11:47:04 PM »

Honest question to the general forum: Am I in the minority of Spycraft GMs in that my players consider those alternate options (Autofire, Strafe, Covering Fire) "pretty useless"?  Or have more players come to the same conclusion as mine?
pretty sure we (or at least I) made pretty solid use of Autofire and Strafe, but interested to see what the next lot ruleset brings by way of autofire.
Logged
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #54 on: May 01, 2012, 02:08:40 AM »

Honest question to the general forum: Am I in the minority of Spycraft GMs in that my players consider those alternate options (Autofire, Strafe, Covering Fire) "pretty useless"?  Or have more players come to the same conclusion as mine?
pretty sure we (or at least I) made pretty solid use of Autofire and Strafe, but interested to see what the next lot ruleset brings by way of autofire.

Yeah, but you're it man.  Everyone else goes with burst/burst for their 2 half actions (especially after Clinton laid out the maths and tactics of it).  You're also far more likely to pick up the support feats then they are (Rock n' Roll in particular I've only ever seen you use - though often to hilarious effect).  Plus it's hard to not notice Spycraft games where it's just you using the Autofire rules / feats when you look at my fallout game where everyone who could  Autofire did (except when ammo was a concern).

Also it's good to see more of the regular guys getting on the forum here.  Makes it less hassle for me to email you all seperately for opinions on stuff.
Logged
CafeCyberia
Recruit
*
Posts: 33


Timeline suboptimal. Abort/Retry/Fail?


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: May 01, 2012, 05:12:40 AM »

Quote from: Sletchman

Yeah, but you're it man.  Everyone else goes with burst/burst for their 2 half actions (especially after Clinton laid out the maths and tactics of it).  You're also far more likely to pick up the support feats then they are (Rock n' Roll in particular I've only ever seen you use - though often to hilarious effect).  Plus it's hard to not notice Spycraft games where it's just you using the Autofire rules / feats when you look at my fallout game where everyone who could  Autofire did (except when ammo was a concern).

Also it's good to see more of the regular guys getting on the forum here.  Makes it less hassle for me to email you all seperately for opinions on stuff.

*koff*koff*

What about MadCabler and her classic Soldier/Grunt by the name of Max Dakka?

Sletch, you still got that mathematical/tactical workup somewhere?
Logged

Me: I had implicitly assumed the coarse neural adjustment is prerecorded and installed with the prosthetic, giving adequate gross control, but fine control takes time(this is awesome justification, for GURPS, to charge points)
Sletch: That's a bloody genius bit of meta explanation
- on cybernetics
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: May 01, 2012, 06:15:57 AM »

Don't think she ever played a Grunt in any of my games?  Might have been one of yours?

I can't recall it precisely, (it was like mid session, and ages ago (as in back in 2.0's "new release" period)).  Clinton went over the tactics: No military trained person is taught to full auto their weapon under most combat situations (cover/supressive fire being a notable exception), and that reducing mobility and options (grenades for example) is worse then putting a few more rounds down range.  And I broke down the numbers on a per volley basis to support his point ('cause data > "it's better" Wink).  It basically boils down to the fact that they never break even, so you are always better off just bursting twice.

A direct comparison: If you fire 2 volleys the targets effective defence is +2/+6.  If instead you fire 3 volleys it's +3/+7/+11.  For a burst it's +0/+5/+10, and you can do it twice in the same timespan.  So you're chances of htiting are better, and you can put 6 rounds down range (for comparison that would be +6/+10/+14/+18/+22/+26 - cleary a lot worse then a double burst).  Autofire supremacy brings them a little closer (2 shots @+2/+5 and 3@+3/+6/+9 - again, you're better of just bursting), but that seems kinda weak for "supremacy" - being almost as good as another (standard, non-feat supported) option doesn't seem to fit the theme of supremacy to me.

The only suitation I would ever autofire is a target with low defence as a Soldier of level 14 or higher.  The penalty system also makes no sense at all - the longer you plan to squeeze the trigger the harder it is to hit the very first shot?  Wait... what?



Admitedly, it's easy to just criticise, and harder to give truly constructive criticism.  Right now I don't have a fully developed solution that I like (and the idea that Crafty should change an entire game line just to please me speaks to a level of arrogance that is hard to describe - it would be nice though Wink), but it's certainly on my mind - especially given I'm current at a 50/50 split between GURPS and Mastercraft (FC so far...) for the Cyberpunk game I was talking to you about.

My current thinking is to replace the Recoil stat from SC with one that works like the Recoil value in GURPS - so that each shot in a burst / autofire action hits based on multiples of that value.  I don't think it's too big a leap in difficulty/complexity - in fact I think it's easier then SCs existing recoil system, with the strength comparisons and what not.  It would also mean that autofiring with a low recoil weapon is far more useful then it is with a high recoil weapon - something I find extremely desirable.  That's how I will probably stat out the weapons if I go with Cyberpunk: The Craftyening - if it works then cool (and maybe the Crafty guys might take notice if they like the mechanic).  I wonder if I can come up with a formula that produces a number based on muzzle energy...

(Sorry to the forum for yet another wall-o-text.  Should get myself a soapbox...)
Logged
CafeCyberia
Recruit
*
Posts: 33


Timeline suboptimal. Abort/Retry/Fail?


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: May 01, 2012, 08:29:30 AM »

At least once.  The oversized South African grunt alongside my (literally) nameless Belgian intruder (Grigoriy kept insulting him by calling him an "American" and later on shot him in the head.  The Belgian survived.  I should have spent rep (had stacks) to have a couple of ICBM standing by on a deadman trigger linked to his vital signs).

I do like G4's dakka mechanic (heaps more than G3's), and can see a lot of scope for its portage to SC.  How would AF supremacy affect recoil under such a mechanic?  Reduce the recoil penalty by 1, but to a minimum of 1?

Also, burst is a lot more efficient on round usage, maxing out at 1 hit per round fired, whereas AF (even with supremacy) can get no better than 1 hit per 2 rounds.

Wouldn't the G4-style Recoil number run more off felt recoil, maybe modified for extra/fewer hands than necessary (eg HMjesus firing a GPMG gangsta while baling out of a crashing plane vs the Belgian above firing a Bushman PDW with both hands)?
Logged

Me: I had implicitly assumed the coarse neural adjustment is prerecorded and installed with the prosthetic, giving adequate gross control, but fine control takes time(this is awesome justification, for GURPS, to charge points)
Sletch: That's a bloody genius bit of meta explanation
- on cybernetics
Sletchman
Control
******
Posts: 4108


Gentleman Scholar.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: May 01, 2012, 08:55:31 AM »

Oh right.  That was in the (brief) game where HMJesus played the test subject with Augmented: Proteus Mod (Truck) wasn't it?  Man that game was a good example of giving the players a little too much room to go wild, wasn't it?

In regards to the mechanics questions, those would be things I'll have to give very serious consideration to if I decide to run with MasterCraft (and I got a few things lined up for a MC Full conversion Borg in my head today, so it's looking like a pretty strong contender at the moment - I'll update my Brain in a Jar thread some time tomrrow if I get a chance, otherwise Thursday).

Off the cuff though, I'd say that making the feats more in line with existing MC feats would be the first step (look at the structure of Archery B/M/S - less passive upgrades to what you do, and more ways to do what you do).  So more of an overhaul, while keeping the concept, then a small adjustment.  After that, there is some equipment that notably reduces recoil (recoil pad, muzzlebrakes and so on) so that would be important.  With handedness I would simply build it into options that allow you to change the way an item is used.

For example:

Rock 'n' Roll
Your control over automatic weapons astounds lesser men.
Prerequisites: Longarm Forte, Strength 13+
Benefits: [INSERT MINOR BENEFIT].  Also, you gain a stance.
Storm of Lead (Stance): While in this stance you may wield any longarm that does not possess the Heavy quality in one hand.  When weilded in this fashion the recoil of the weapon increases by 2.

That's just off the cuff, the recoil value may need to be adjusted and so forth.  I also have about 3 different ideas in mind for the minor passive benefit (including ignoring squares while strafing / making supressive fire actions and something that synergises with intimidate - because facing down machine guns akimbo should be kinda scary...).  Incidently, as written it would work with Shotguns too.  I think I like that idea.
Logged
CafeCyberia
Recruit
*
Posts: 33


Timeline suboptimal. Abort/Retry/Fail?


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: May 01, 2012, 09:22:17 AM »

Yup, with WarMachine Delta.  At least he wasn't playing a faceman Cheesy

Was thinking for extra/less hands than required, maybe a -1/+2 to Recoil value (like what you've done with the retooled RNR - now I have this image of HMjesus and Animal (of Muppet fame) both going nuts with SAWs akimbo).

How are your thoughts on buckshot delivery systems coming along?
Logged

Me: I had implicitly assumed the coarse neural adjustment is prerecorded and installed with the prosthetic, giving adequate gross control, but fine control takes time(this is awesome justification, for GURPS, to charge points)
Sletch: That's a bloody genius bit of meta explanation
- on cybernetics
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 18 Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!