Sletch pontificates on gun combat in SC3

[Sletchman]

Was thinking for extra/less hands than required, maybe a -1/+2 to Recoil value

The only problem with reduction of recoil is that it's easy to reach a wrong point.  Consider: Extra hand + Recoil reducing stock option (recoil pad, solid stock on a pistol/light smg) + theoretical braced stance + muzzlebrake = -4 recoil.  In my mind a good default level would be around Recoil 5 (sits along side the multistrike tricks from Archery and Knives, as well as the existing burst rules).  That character Could be at effective recoil 1 and if they were also a Soldier / Lancer / Martial Artist could apply some stupid levels of hurt to their target.  Jacking up the base recoil isn't a solution either here - you end up making these options required for anything that isn't "shoot him, then shoot him again but seperately".

Just thinking out loud atm of course.  Perhaps a solution might be to put floors on any and all reductions?  Not sure how well that represents reality though, so some more research will be required.

EX: Muzzlebrake: Reduces recoil by 1.  May only be applied to a firearm with a recoil of 8 or higher.  [NOTE: RANDOM #]

How are your thoughts on buckshot delivery systems coming along?

Haven't given it too much to be honest.  I'm almost exclusively thinking style, setting and themes right now.  While I like G4's system, I don't think it fits spycraft at all (and it is to involved a process for a faster paced and more streamlined and cinematic game like Spycraft - which is also the sort of game I want to run (so I'll have to "cinematic up G4" if I use it - which is fairly doable anyway)).

Note sure if this'll totally work, but it might (and represents reality reasonably well while still being quick and easy to apply): Spread: [CURRENT FC TEXT].  Any Damage Reduction the target possess is doubled against attacks from this weapon.


I'm not 100% sure though - all the above is just off the top of the head, as I've spent all my (small quantities of) spare time watching Cyberpunk films and tv shows, as well as rereading some stories.  I think getting the setting and vibe right is more important then having flawless mechanics behind it (a few flaws are easy to overlook in a game that's both damn cool and shitloads of fun - both my core motivations as a GM).  I also won't be able to dedicate too much time for it today - my only spare time is taken up by going to see The Avengers (finally) with my Nana.  Hopefully I get enough time to put some thoughts to paper though (plus she'll likely be very useful with the psychology and sociology of the setting).

[hmjesus]

WMD was a fun character.  Never did get to use that chest-mounted surface to air missile.

I know what you mean by Burst being easily the more effective of the firing styles, considering with the right tricks you could burst fire into more targets, more effectively than you could strafe with any real chance of hitting.  I do like the GURPS autofire mechanic, especially when coupled with buckshot rounds in an automatic shotgun, and something I would love to see SC3 leverage off. 

But I'm not a mechanics person, I just never did like the fact that because you've opened up with more than a few rounds your initial shots go completely haywire, as opposed to going wild as you fire.

[MilitiaJim]

FWIW, reality is intruding when Bursts are more effective than Autofire for anything smaller than a car...

[Sletchman]

FWIW, reality is intruding when Bursts are more effective than Autofire for anything smaller than a car...

I do agree in principle.

My problem is that in a "6 second action" (from a fortified position - to avoid issues of move actions) you can put a half dozen accurate bursts down range, not just 2.  So the question is: What's the difference between 6 bursts of 3 rounds and "autofiring 6 volleys of 3 rounds"?

From a purely mechanics perspective they sound pretty damn identical to me - 18 rounds at the enemy in 6 seconds, grouped in 3's.  Only difference I can see is that in reality, that the former has a high chance of hitting multiple times, whereas at the table the latter has a high chance of doing somewhere in the vicinity of fuck all.

[MilitiaJim]

...  So the question is: What's the difference between 6 bursts of 3 rounds and "autofiring 6 volleys of 3 rounds"?
...

Those are pretty much the same, and unless you're shooting at something big, most of those rounds aren't hitting their target.  Two burst actions is six round in six second, and odds of more than two of those six bullets connecting are lousy.

(Side note, the pdf does say that an Autofire action is "a stream of automatic fire at one target," it really is holding the trigger and hosing One Thing.)

[Sletchman]

A quick gun question for our resident experts:  How modular are most weapons?

Super vague, I know.  But basically what I'm asking is if there is a hypothetical .45 ACP handgun, can it have a longer barrel for higher accuracy at range swapped in?  Or have the reciever put on to a different grip to change it's capacity? Same question but for a hypothetical 7.62 NATO rifle - can parts easily swap out to change rate of fire, effective range, magazine capacity and other rifle statics?

For this particular question, "easily" means with a machine shop and proper training, but not requiring so much fundamental reengineering that it's a entirely new design.  It also assumes that a replacement part exists as an "on the shelf" product (or equilivent).

It's not directly a question for SC3 or anything (though it would make things a whole lot easier if weapons were just one of each caliber (weapon caliber, not caliber caliber) with a large number of upgrades to make different weapons easy to build in game), but for a different project (that may or may not even be D20).  A "world of tomorrow" kinda thing.  Figured posting in here is less clutter then a new thread for a simple question.

[tfwfh]

I think the answer is somewhat.  Also super vague, I know.

In the real world, some are more modular than others.  The XM8, for example, was intended to have most of its components be interchangeable through various kits, so the same basic platform could equally be a short barrel small caliber carbine or a belt fed light machine gun.  And the components were designed to be changed in the field, without the need for extensive tools.  Or the M416, for instance, is essentially an M4, but with the action and receiver from a G36.  That does require a fair amount of tools, but it's still most often available as a kit that's used to modify a standard M4.  I think both would satisfy your definition of easy.

You're also right that it is the caliber of bullet that is most important for determining the performance of a gun.  From a game design perspective, it would be reasonable to start from there like so:
Assault Rifle

• 5.56mm NATO; X damage, X range, X AP, X ammo, X weight
• 7.62mm NATO; Y damage, Y range, Y AP, Y ammo, Y weight
• 7.62x39mm AK; Z damage, Z range, Z AP, Z ammo, Z weight

And then include some number of qualities, possibly weighted to add up to some target number of design points.  Qualities like high or low capacity, light weight or heavy materials, long or short barrel, bullpup or traditional configuration, and so on.

[Sletchman]

Not quite what I meant, but I think it's close enough for my purpose (which really doesn't have to have extreme levels of realism, seeing as it's set in the future).

[MilitiaJim]

Many weapons are pretty modular.  Magazines obviously are totally modular.  Buttstocks can be changed out very easily.  Most service pistols can have a longer barrel installed easily, but barrel changes on rifles tend to be more difficult unless the rifle is built to have easily changed barrels (XM-8, FN-SCAR).

[Sletchman]

Many weapons are pretty modular.  Magazines obviously are totally modular.  Buttstocks can be changed out very easily.  Most service pistols can have a longer barrel installed easily, but barrel changes on rifles tend to be more difficult unless the rifle is built to have easily changed barrels (XM-8, FN-SCAR).

Cheers.  I haven't actually had the chance to break down any weapons unfortunately, and I can't find any respositories of information on these sort of specifications.  I guess the manufacturers don't want people duplicating their work (or making things illegally at home / work).  I can totally work with this and tfwfh's response though.

If only I could understand the SMG statlines, I'd be golden...

[MilitiaJim]

If only I could understand the SMG statlines, I'd be golden...

What is the question? 

FWIW, I think SMGs fall into two catagories:  Machine pistols and rifles.  I don't see the point in splitting them out as a proficiency group, and have been bitching about that for years.

[Crafty_Pat]

FWIW, I think SMGs fall into two catagories:  Machine pistols and rifles.  I don't see the point in splitting them out as a proficiency group, and have been bitching about that for years.

Out of curiosity, and assuming no iteration of long arms and short arms is workable, how would you folks break up modern weapon categories?

[Agent 333]

I'd break it up by firing "stance" if you will.

Pistols (including machine pistols)
Rifles (including SMGs and Shotguns)
Pintel Mounted Weapons (machine guns and the like)
Shoulder Fired Weapons (Rocket Launchers mostly)
Artillery (Including mortars. Basically any weapon where a spotter and algebra are helpful.)
Flamethrowers fire sufficiently differently than any other weapon type to probably require a separate proficiency.
Bows (modern Crossbows probably use Rifle or Pistol proficiency, depending on grip)
Hurled weapons.
Melee weapons.

[MilitiaJim]

Sidearms (Pistols, light SMGs, light crossbows)
Longarms (Rifles, shotguns, heavy SMGs, most lighter machine guns, heavy crossbows)
Tactical (Mounted and heavy machine guns, grenade launcher, flamers, man portable rocket launchers)
Vehicle (Turret mounted cannons, CROW systems, artillery in general)
Hurled (Throwing knives, bows, and such)
Melee
Unarmed

I've left hand grenades out, because those things are -ing simple.  All you need to be proficient with grenades is a throwing appendage.  (Two is better to prevent dental damage, but PCs are big damn heroes and don't worry about that sort of thing.)  Mortars are a bit funny, as they don't need to be vehicle mounted, but I'll leave them in the vehicle category, since the folks who are trained in their use tend to be military and I don't see the need for a "mathiness" category of weapons.

[VisualStatic]

I have a question for the people who are more knowledgeable on weapons then me.  Could we just come up with a build system for weapons  in SC3 than needing to list out every make/model?

A thought that crossed my mind would be something like this.

Handguns would be broken down into say 3 categories,(Light,Medium,Heavy).
For a light, you'd pick caliber (say anything under .30), 1 weapon quality.
For Medium, pick caliber(say between .30 and .40), 2 weapon qualities, 1 weapon upgrade.
For heavy, pick caliber (above .40), 3 weapon qualities, 2 weapon upgrades.

Workable, or am I over simplifying the variety of weapons available.