Gun Combat and never missing.

[Condottiere]

Israel reportedly used a remote-controlled gun to assassinate an Iranian scientist
It could change the nature of espionage.
Jon Fingas
J. Fingas
@jonfingas
September 18th, 2021

Countries have assassinated people with drones, but those attacks now appear to include robotic weapons on the ground. The New York Times sources claim Israel assassinated top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh on November 27th, 2020 using a remotely-controlled, AI-assisted machine gun. Israel reportedly mounted the gun on a pickup truck by the side of the road and, when Fakhrizadeh's car approached had a distant operator fire the gun using a satellite link.

The attack was precise, sparing Fakhrizadeh's wife, but may not have used facial recognition to assist with aiming as unnamed Iranian officials said. While Israel purportedly used the AI to compensate for the satellite system's lag and gun recoil, operatives identified Fakhrizadeh by staging a decoy car with a camera to force a U-turn and get a clear image.

Neither government has publicly confirmed the use of a robotic gun, although The Times' story is based in part on the Fakhrizadeh family's statements to the media. Iranian investigators only determined the nature of the attack by chance, according to the sources. The Israeli operatives exploded the truck in a bid to destroy the evidence, but the equipment remained intact (if inoperable).

The use of this technology isn't surprising. While the remote gun was supposedly difficult to set up (Israel smuggled parts in very gradually), it both kept agents out of harm's way and avoided raising alarms like a drone. If the gun had been destroyed as planned, Iran might have been unable to determine the assassination method.

If accurate, the report might point to the future of espionage. Assassins can now use robotics to take out targets with little risk to themselves, little warning to enemies and a greater chance of deniability. You won't necessarily see a surge of assassinations as a result (Fakhrizadeh ignored multiple security recommendations), but there's a real chance this won't be the last kill of its kind.

https://www.engadget.com/israel-remote-control-iran-scientist-assassination-144746205.html

 

[Saladman]

Another thing going on is that Central Supply Catalog predates 2e's Boon/Bane mechanic. So everything's a plus, when if it was written after 2e core some of it could have been a Boon. So another approach would be to go back through and say some of those pluses are now Boons instead. That's still a real benefit, but it addresses the stacking pluses problem.

 

[Heartwarder]

Another thing going on is that Central Supply Catalog predates 2e's Boon/Bane mechanic. So everything's a plus, when if it was written after 2e core some of it could have been a Boon. So another approach would be to go back through and say some of those pluses are now Boons instead. That's still a real benefit, but it addresses the stacking pluses problem.

I was under the impression that Boon/Bane was added to the game as a tool for the Referee to apply in situation where they feel there should be a DM + or -, but one is not defined or is hard to define... all the while premade stuff operates on DMs. Thinking of which the only use of Banes/Boons in premade mechanic I can recall from the top of my head is Bwap racial feature.

All in all, Boons/Banes are statistically within DM +1/-1, and since they dont stack, they dont affect the outcomes all that much (although psychologically throwing extra die evokes an effect in players for some reason). Here is the chart https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...OXSoyGYjEYNpcgsAINlbLOWjHExmvTL2jOuf/pubhtml#

Nonetheless, as demonstrated on the graphs I posted yesterday, weapon addons are not at the core of the problem - even without addons ranged attacks are extremely accurate. Even snapshots at extreme ranges have 50/50 chance, aiming makes missing almost impossible.

My approach is to address stacking effect of addons/gear with other gear - you add a fancy computerized aiming device, foe adds pattern breaking camouflage that negates it (I allow multichromatic camo negatively affect computerized scopes that rely on visilight for example), you get smart bullets or lazers, foe gets reflex enhancing cyberware (I let bonus from Muscular Bridging augmentation to affect Dodge action for example), etc etc. Its a "realistic" competition of sword vs. shield

 

[Saladman]

as demonstrated on the graphs I posted yesterday...
...
weapon addons are not at the core of the problem - even without addons ranged attacks are extremely accurate. Even snapshots at extreme ranges have 50/50 chance, aiming makes missing almost impossible.

My last post was directed more towards the OP, and I do think it addresses PsiTraveller's concern.

But I haven't actually found gunfire always hitting to be a problem in the combats I've run. There's dodging, there's cover, there's the fact the enemy is taking actions also so spending too long aiming just gives them more chances to shoot you. And to the extent odds of hitting are decent, and they are, ambushes or recon to go first are a time-honored tradition in Traveller going back to Classic. There's no particular reason a gunfight should play out at the same tempo as a melee in D&D.

Honestly your posts struck me as theory-crafting at first, but probably we're just running very different games despite working out of the same book. That's a thing that can happen with Mongoose Traveller in several dimensions, from how much your group uses task chains, how many terms you allow in character creation, whether you use custom ammo out of CSC, and others.

Boons/Banes are statistically within DM +1/-1, and since they dont stack, they dont affect the outcomes all that much

That's exactly my point. OP was talking about stacking add-ons pushing the numbers into can't miss territory, so replace stacking with non-stacking and the thread question is addressed.

My approach is to address stacking effect of addons/gear with other gear - you add a fancy computerized aiming device, foe adds pattern breaking camouflage that negates it (I allow multichromatic camo negatively affect computerized scopes that rely on visilight for example), you get smart bullets or lazers, foe gets reflex enhancing cyberware (I let bonus from Muscular Bridging augmentation to affect Dodge action for example), etc etc. Its a "realistic" competition of sword vs. shield

So, an arms race. I would not enjoy GMing that with my limited prep time.

 

[Heartwarder]

So, an arms race.

Not exactly an "arms race", just not using gear that doesn't have a counter. If I dont see a counter to Holographic sight in the published books (and dont have time to homebrew one), I avoid using the Holographic sight. Not that I see a problem with Holographic sight, just an example. Maybe a better example, I still dont see a *good* counter for Battledress (the whole category), so I explicitly exclude it from the game. Involving players in figuring out the counter is also interesting - forshadow that a particular "boss" might involve "a thing" and let them try and plan around it... with battledresses it always devolves into heavy tanks, orbital strikes though or just running away.

Honestly your posts struck me as theory-crafting

You say theory-crafting as is its something bad :wink:
I like "tactical battles" with vehicles and terrain and ambushes... an area where the MgT2 system gets a bit patchy, but the groundwork seems solid, so I am slightly tuning it.

 

[Condottiere]

Firepower, mobility, protection.

In Dune, that's sidestepped with personal shields.

 

[PsiTraveller]

I'll add to my initial question about tech and never missing.

Assume a player has a lot of money and can afford anything listed in the books. They have access to any tech up to level 15 or 16

With the implanted computes and skills program. How much can a person boost their own skills? How good can a Lobot type person be in skills like engineering or astrogation or medicine etc? (Int or EDU based skills)

Speaking of an arms race, what about a skills race where your elite people are stuffed with whatever bonuses money can buy?

For Expert software for example, is the DM +1 the same if the base TL 11 is used or the TL 13 program is used that costs 100 times as much? (Or is the bonus of the more expensive software just the chance to use the skill on more difficult tasks and the DM +1 is the limit? )

 

[Condottiere]

The answer is somewhat similar to that what is faced in other gaming systems.

If you can take out an opponent easily, that's a mook.

 

[Garran]

"You get holographic sights, they get pattern-breaking camoflage to counter it." - turning everything into a Potemkin upgrade isn't really 'solving' anything, it's just passive-aggressive GMing. The players might as well be told to spend their credits on a formal Useless Widget That Does Nothing since that's at least being honest about what they're getting.

 

[OrdosMalleus]

My group has only had a couple of firefights in the current campaign. No one is TOO good at guns either, so we haven't had terrible issues with it. The players' (and my) approach has been they put a lot of effort into avoiding combat situations. If it looks like there's a possibility for violence, they do recon, they plan, and they go into things like porcupines making love. It's sort of like a game of Cthulhu, if a fight breaks out, you probably did something wrong and odds are things are going to get messy.

It's an unpopular opinion in some circles, but I sometimes think my next game won't use any personal equipment other than the core book. You want a "ray gun" that goes ZAP? It has that. You want a laser sight on it or a fingerprint lock? It has those too. You want a sword? No problem. I think the same for ships and their options as well. Forget a dozen different kinds of missiles and other crazy things. You want missiles? OK. There it is: MISSILE (Generic)

I may be a little gun-shy from the wild & woolly days of 3rd ed. D&D splat books, but supplements can be a dangerous rabbit hole to fall down sometimes.

 

[PsiTraveller]

Tech levels can have a large impact on ship combat. Advanced missiles (TL 14, Highguard pg 30), fired from a TL 9 ship against another TL 9 ship uses the TL 14 level of the missiles, granting a +5 DM to the attack roll. (pg 162 and pg 75 of the Core Book, then adding in a DM bonus for extra missiles in the salvo.

The bonus the Hawk Warriors of Drinax got to their flying power armor allowed a handful of ships to take over Asim in the PoD campaign. There are a lot of bonuses to be gained from having the higher tech level.

 

[Heartwarder]

"You get holographic sights, they get pattern-breaking camoflage to counter it." - turning everything into a Potemkin upgrade isn't really 'solving' anything, it's just passive-aggressive GMing. The players might as well be told to spend their credits on a formal Useless Widget That Does Nothing since that's at least being honest about what they're getting.

Either or both of us have to work on our english, because that is definitely not what I meant.
What I meant can be postulated as: If there exists a gizmo that gives an advantage in a fight, that is not an alien artifact or an experimental tech (TL16+ in MgT2 terms), there should exist another gizmo that counterbalances or negates this advantage.

It makes sense from a worldbuilding point of view, states pursue higher TLs to get an advantage and counter advantage of potential foes, so most lower tech gear should have a counter that is same or higher TL. Counter can be hard or soft, can be too expensive for widescale adoption, but it should exist.

It doesn't mean the opposition magically has that thing - that would depend on the kind of foes - does it make sense for them to have it? If its a professional military of a large state, they probably have all or most of the things; if its a mercenary group - they have a budget and cover the most gizmos that are most cost efficient for mission success; a band of corsair might have an expensive gizmo or two but overall are equipped with subpar stuff... etc etc. Making encounters is another story altogether.

 

[Condottiere]

Using the by now the well worn Sword Worlder example, extensive use of heavy weapon teams to deal with heavily armoured Imperium troops.

And then you have John Wick.

 

[Repairman_Jack]

Regarding the previous graphs showing the auto-hit problem... the rule that is broken is NOT the range modifiers. The rule that is broken is the "aim" rule. It doesn't make even basic sense.

Anyone that has actually fired a weapon under careful aiming conditions knows that you don't get continually more accurate the longer you aim. You are either aiming, or your not. If you aim (call it 3 to 6 seconds) you get a bonus. After that, you're just aiming the same as before... but just waiting for your shot.

So, the easy fix... and logical fix... is to remove the constantly increasing aim bonus... and replace it with a flat aim bonus after aiming for 1 round. Boom... problem solved.

 

[Condottiere]

Some of us just take longer to be satisfied that we're aiming at the bull's eye, and carefully caress the trigger to not jostle the rifle.

 

[Bense]

The original example has a few limitations:
Intelligent Weapon is at least Cr1,000. A personal HUD is an additional Cr1,500, and the Smart Tracker is an additional Cr500.
Thats a total of Cr3,000 added to your weapon cost, which makes it unavailable to a starting character (before the 2022 Update, at least). The Gun mustering out benefit limits you to a Cr1,000 weapon and you can only spend up to Cr2,000 on gear.
If you want your P-HUD to not be obvious to observers that's another Cr1,000, for Cr4,000 added to your weapon cost.
So a referee has to allow a character to find a seller and buy this gear before the player can be this competent in a fire fight. Then he has to get it past law enforcement, which may be non-trivial.

The Smart Tracker only gives its +2 bonus after you have already hit the target once, so it's no help on your opening attack. It also requires a Minor Action to activate in the same round you hit the target, so you won't be aiming in the same round. Or moving or drawing the weapon either.

If the target is in cover, moving fast, more than 100m away, dodges, or is just prone the target number won't be 8+ either.

So in a typical firefight, the example player will get +4 to his first shot, the target will be in cover (+2), and might dodge (maybe +1 or +2) meaning the player's +4 is zeroed out and he's back to needing to roll an 8+ on the dice again.

 

[Heartwarder]

Regarding the previous graphs showing the auto-hit problem... the rule that is broken is NOT the range modifiers. The rule that is broken is the "aim" rule. It doesn't make even basic sense.

Noted. One does not exclude the other though. You can both tweak range modifiers and aiming bonus buildup.
My "tweaked" range modifiers (0, -2, -4, -8 instead of +1, 0, -2, -4) are based off of real world statistical data. I tried to imitate the hit-rate curve of an average soldier as best possible without changing how these modifiers mechanically apply. If characters want to hit targets reliably at 1 km distance, they should bring an anti-material, laser rifle or whatever else suitable weapon - doing 800 m shots with assault rifle and expecting reliable hits is ridiculous.

 

[Being]

A character with base +3 to hit is not average. Average DEX gives no plus. A character with Gun Cbt 1, is skilled most soldiers would be around that. Any ranged attack over 100 metres is considered Extreme unless the weapon has a Scope and is Aiming.

If you allow multiple Minor actions to aim is the target permanently still? If its moving and unaware of the threat it may still be moving in and out of Cover or even become Hidden. He can still Dive for Cover even if unaware according to the rules. Once its aware of the threat it is going to Dodge, Move fast, Hide.

How can the character Aim at 800meters with no Scope?. A man sized target is extremely difficult to see at that range. No terrain is truly flat.

Yes the rules give unrealistic chances to hit but they are pretty abstract anyway and unrealistic anyway, if you had "realistic" rules, players would get bored really fast as most of the time they wouldnt see each other too fire at. The trick with the rules is to encompass terrain, situation, weather conditions,- roleplaying.

Real Infantry units multiple the chances to hit by having teams engage targets not individuals. The effective range for most soldiers with an iron sighted shoulder arm is considered 300meters, regardless of whether it is 5.56 or 7.62. However the effective range of a team with exactly the same weapons is considered 500m. This does not include SAWs, LMGs ect. The rules dont even allow for that and virtually no RPGs do. RPGs favour individuals pulling off stunts, real life favours the tactical application of disciplined fire by coordinated teams.

 

[Condottiere]

Scopes can be improved, and eventually you develop smart bullets, and as you increase the range, specialized heavy calibre sniper rifles would come into play.

If you start looking at firefights as groups of integrated units colliding, rather than individuals, supporting weapon systems would also be used, whether rocket propelled grenades, machine guns and/or mortars, which tend to dissuade frontal assault, pin down the enemy, and eventually attrition them.

As far as I can tell, modern infantry tactics are built around more powerful supporting weapon systems, until they collide into close quarters combat with the other side's troops.

 

[Heartwarder]

Any ranged attack over 100 metres is considered Extreme unless the weapon has a Scope and is Aiming.

That rule was observed when calculating the graphs.

A character with base +3 to hit is not average. Average DEX gives no plus. A character with Gun Cbt 1, is skilled most soldiers would be around that.

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.