Gun Combat and never missing.

Discuss the Traveller RPG and its many settings
Being
Weasel
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:04 pm

Re: Gun Combat and never missing.

Postby Being » Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:49 pm

Heartwarder wrote:
Sun Oct 31, 2021 4:23 pm
Not according to page 56 of Core Rulebook (not 2022 edition). Says:
  • Skill 0 is competent in using that skill, but probably has had little experience in actually using it.
    Skill 1, 2 is trained in that skill. Each level represents several years of experience using that skill.
    Skill 2, 3 is a skilled professional in that field.
    Skill 4, 5 is probably both well-respected and well-known in his field.
While indeed dex 7 is no DM, an experienced soldier, a sergeant, would have DM +3 from a combination of dexterity and skill according to description in the book.
[/quote]

Thats a description of skill levels and what they represent, not typical character skill. You can quite easily generate, in fact its more likely, a 4 Term Army Sergeant that will only have Gun Cbt 1 and may even have negative a negative Dex DM from aging.

A character with DM+3 GunCbt is not "average" in fact that would be according to the chart a "skilled professional in the field" . Even most experienced soldiers do not have that level of skill.

However the question should be is it too easy for someone unskilled or basically skilled to hit someone constantly.?

So Gun Cbt 1. Firing Assault Rifle with iron sights at target 800metres away standing clearly fully in the open, is at DM-3 so needs an 11 to hit, if he aims he gains further DM this Round of DM+1 so he requires a 10. (presuming hes made a Recon check to spot). When fired upon the target may dive for cover DM-2, maybe only DM-1 if the Ref rules no cover, but at 800m 3-4 inches of fold in the earth is going to give cover, so he now needs a 12 or an 11.

If you allow multiple Aiming DMs before firing, or the firer is more skilled, or youre using optics, obviously the chance to hit improves. If the target is dodging, in cover -prone the chance decreases.

Also it doesnt have to be 800m, basically a person trained with their weapon, with iron sights usually needs a 12 on 2D6 to spot and hit a man sized target over 100metres, in one round. In cannot be more difficult on 2D6.

Any DM modifier is pretty drastic in 2D6. But that is the limit of the dice base. The combat in Traveller is very abstract it does not even approach a simulation. Range is one of its abstractions. You can reload an Antique multi barreled firearm faster than an under-barreled Grenade Launcher or in the same amount of time as a magazine fed pistol.! Even the TL at which some weapons have their base are way off. You cannot fire more than one round from a semi automatic weapon in 6 seconds. There is no modifier for full auto fire which should be a negative or a positive depending on circumstance, the list goes on.

Yes its too easy to hit in Traveller, compared to real life, but if you allow targets to react, move, use cover and do not allow players to abuse Aim, there are more negative DMs than positive. Of course Scopes, Laser Sights etc give positives.( But Traveller is a game about TL. ) But I run quite a bit of combat in my games its fast its fun, even at close range characters that are not highly skilled or Teched out, miss quite a bit. (Even when they hit Armour often stops damage)

Its also a system that has to cover everything from a unarmed naked man to someone in Battledress with a Fusion Gun, maybe in the same combat, that abstraction really comes in handy.
User avatar
Heartwarder
Weasel
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:43 pm

Re: Gun Combat and never missing.

Postby Heartwarder » Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:31 pm

Being wrote:
Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:49 pm
A character with DM+3 GunCbt is not "average" in fact that would be according to the chart a "skilled professional in the field" . Even most experienced soldiers do not have that level of skill.
On page 87 of core rulebook (2021 edition) we have a table for quick mook generation - looking at "Experienced Combatant" you can get a character that has DM+3 to gun combat through +2 to skill and +2 to DEX. I assumed an average US sergeant fell into this category. I might be overestimating... Doesnt matter, I made graphs for combined DM +1 also. My methodology seems sound. Results tested. So I will keep suggesting range DM mods to people and use them myself. I will also consider limiting Aiming to +1, as per your suggestion.
User avatar
NOLATrav
Lesser Spotted Mongoose
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2015 7:42 pm
Location: Crescent City

Re: Gun Combat and never missing.

Postby NOLATrav » Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:07 pm

Heartwarder wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 4:31 pm
Being wrote:
Sun Oct 31, 2021 5:49 pm
A character with DM+3 GunCbt is not "average" in fact that would be according to the chart a "skilled professional in the field" . Even most experienced soldiers do not have that level of skill.
On page 87 of core rulebook (2021 edition) we have a table for quick mook generation - looking at "Experienced Combatant" you can get a character that has DM+3 to gun combat through +2 to skill and +2 to DEX. I assumed an average US sergeant fell into this category. I might be overestimating... Doesnt matter, I made graphs for combined DM +1 also. My methodology seems sound. Results tested. So I will keep suggesting range DM mods to people and use them myself. I will also consider limiting Aiming to +1, as per your suggestion.
In a variant of your scheme, I’ve gone back to effective range (whichever band the listed numerical range falls into) requiring 8+ to hit, anything closer is DM+2, each successive range band further is a cumulative DM-2. Aiming is a flat DM+2 at a cost of two minor actions. Scope = -1 range band, advanced scope = -2 range bands. Aiming is required for scopes but does not provide any DM beyond the scope itself. Basically just adjusting difficulties. We don’t use the “100+ meters = extreme range” rule.

We also do this for space combat as well as sensors. We’re toying with a +DM for energy weapon damage at ranges inside effective.

Seems to be working so far, and feels right to us. But none of us are combat vets so it’s just a grognardy crunch-fest, not based on data or experience.
User avatar
Heartwarder
Weasel
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:43 pm

Re: Gun Combat and never missing.

Postby Heartwarder » Sat Nov 13, 2021 5:23 pm

NOLATrav wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:07 pm
In a variant of your scheme, I’ve gone back to effective range (whichever band the listed numerical range falls into) requiring 8+ to hit, anything closer is DM+2, each successive range band further is a cumulative DM-2. Aiming is a flat DM+2 at a cost of two minor actions. Scope = -1 range band, advanced scope = -2 range bands. Aiming is required for scopes but does not provide any DM beyond the scope itself.
Sounds interesting. I will run the numbers once I have time. Your system seems efficient and sleek. At a glance it allows a hit ratio higher than I would want, but that is a GMing preference. Basically it boils down to how fast the combat should be vs. how important it is for players to manage resources - if hits are frequent, people can get the "bestest" guns/ammo they can and not worry about "economy" (i.e. price of shooting); on the other hand when misses are frequent people start thinking about switching to cheaper weapons/ammunition to avoid phyrrhic victory situation where they expended so much resources the encounter feels like a loss. Also for that reason I abhor "infinite ammo weapons" like PGMPs - they rob players of the struggles of choice: "do I shoot the big gun or use my sidearm". After all, tabletop is about emotional and intellectual struggles as much as about feeling awesome.
NOLATrav wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:07 pm
We don’t use the “100+ meters = extreme range” rule.
That rule was there to reign in automatic fire, but its arbitrary nature (100 m for personal and 1000 m for vehicular combats) comes off forced. Especially for vehicular fights with higher tech stuff like g/fighters - 1 km is just too little compared to the speed of these things, while many canon fighters in VHB and polity supplements (SW, AoCS etc.) seem to use auto firing weapons that are gimped by that rule, aggravated by really shitty missile options - someone dropped the ball on balancing those - but that is a whole another story. Anyway, for personal combat, automatic fire can get devastating at earlier tech levels where there is no decent armor suits - without a penalty to hit, damage output of a simple assault rifle can be devastating on full auto. Unless you have some fix for that. Do you? Please share.
NOLATrav wrote:
Tue Nov 02, 2021 8:07 pm
We also do this for space combat as well as sensors.
That is something I would want to hear! I, for reasons, spend much more time running vehicular combats than spaceshipular, but even in those I ran, sensor interactions came off lacking depth - gain lock, lose lock for a Boon?! - boring. No fun of measuring your ECM vs. ECCM of the enemy... being spoiled by SFC is like that :roll:
JNJ
Stoat
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:01 pm

Re: Gun Combat and never missing.

Postby JNJ » Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:26 am

[/quote]
That is something I would want to hear! I, for reasons, spend much more time running vehicular combats than spaceshipular, but even in those I ran, sensor interactions came off lacking depth - gain lock, lose lock for a Boon?! - boring. No fun of measuring your ECM vs. ECCM of the enemy... being spoiled by SFC is like that :roll:
[/quote]

IIRC in previous editions of Traveller (CT, Megatraveller, T4, ...) you had first to lock sensors on a target before being able to fire on it. If the sensor lock on was lost (jamming,...) you had to reaquire the target to be able to fire on it again.

IMO it made more sense and gave a real importance to sensors in space combat.
User avatar
Heartwarder
Weasel
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2021 3:43 pm

Re: Gun Combat and never missing.

Postby Heartwarder » Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:51 pm

JNJ wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:26 am
IIRC in previous editions of Traveller (CT, Megatraveller, T4, ...) you had first to lock sensors on a target before being able to fire on it. If the sensor lock on was lost (jamming,...) you had to reaquire the target to be able to fire on it again.

IMO it made more sense and gave a real importance to sensors in space combat.
That seems like an easy thing to integrate! Demand a sensor lock to attack in space combat beyond Dogfight / Close range (10 km). That is what I am gonna try. Thanks for the idea!
I feel like this way a daring crew of heroes can take on bigger targets, as it is no longer a game of attrition of who runs out of HP first - and I bet the emotional impact of that sensor op breaking lock right before the big guns fire will evoke emotions.
Although need to think how this should interact with missile weapons... probably require lock to launch, but after it work as written.
JNJ
Stoat
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 4:01 pm

Re: Gun Combat and never missing.

Postby JNJ » Mon Nov 15, 2021 4:51 pm

Heartwarder wrote:
Mon Nov 15, 2021 1:51 pm
JNJ wrote:
Sun Nov 14, 2021 11:26 am
IIRC in previous editions of Traveller (CT, Megatraveller, T4, ...) you had first to lock sensors on a target before being able to fire on it. If the sensor lock on was lost (jamming,...) you had to reaquire the target to be able to fire on it again.

IMO it made more sense and gave a real importance to sensors in space combat.
That seems like an easy thing to integrate! Demand a sensor lock to attack in space combat beyond Dogfight / Close range (10 km). That is what I am gonna try. Thanks for the idea!
I feel like this way a daring crew of heroes can take on bigger targets, as it is no longer a game of attrition of who runs out of HP first - and I bet the emotional impact of that sensor op breaking lock right before the big guns fire will evoke emotions.
Although need to think how this should interact with missile weapons... probably require lock to launch, but after it work as written.
Welcome :-)
Yes, gaining a lock for one side and breaking it for the other side can be quite emotional!
I just reread the T4 version, it is as you suggest, missiles require a lock to launch and work as written after.
Quite easy to integrate and adds a lot of intensity to space combat.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 44 guests