Missing Rules/Explanations

[SableWyvern]

The following bits and pieces are referenced in the combat rules, but are either not explained or are contradictory:

p64: "Combat actions may be interrupted" and p66, most of the "Declaration" paragraph.

No rules or advice are given on how to adjudicate these interrupts and non-defensive reactions that occur during the Action Phase. If character A declares he will shoot character B, can B interrupt or react to fire back first (or simultaneously)? If he can, doesn't that make the Dex order meaningless? If the rules for Interrupts on p69 are employed, then Action Phase interrupts and non-defensive reactions are just carried out on the characters normal Dex anway.

p67, common combat modifiers: "Movement: -1 per 3 ticks"

I presume this is target movement. What about crawlers or fliers, who are moving at different rates?

p69, Cover Table
Ducking values differ from the earlier rule that indicates ducking doubles the value of cover.

Weapon Ranges
This isn't unclear, just a personal disagreement: Pistols should not be able to fire out to 250m. I suggest Optimum range of Close and Max range of Medium. A really good shoot might hit a target over 50m, but I don't believe anyone will be getting hits, let alone doing damage of consequence at over 100m in combat. Shotguns should probably have their max range dropped back as well.

 

[Exwrestler]

Weapon Ranges
This isn't unclear, just a personal disagreement: Pistols should not be able to fire out to 250m. I suggest Optimum range of Close and Max range of Medium. A really good shoot might hit a target over 50m, but I don't believe anyone will be getting hits, let alone doing damage of consequence at over 100m in combat. Shotguns should probably have their max range dropped back as well.

I'm with you to here. This is the future. No reason at all that these ranges should be impossible (especially for Lasers and Gauss weaponry).

 

[AKAramis]

Weapon Ranges
This isn't unclear, just a personal disagreement: Pistols should not be able to fire out to 250m. I suggest Optimum range of Close and Max range of Medium. A really good shoot might hit a target over 50m, but I don't believe anyone will be getting hits, let alone doing damage of consequence at over 100m in combat. Shotguns should probably have their max range dropped back as well.

Having fired pistols at man-sized targets out to 100m, it is quite possible to hit at some extreme ranges. (Prone, braced, careful aim.) The basic physics allow shots to somewhere around 500m...

 

[SableWyvern]

Weapon Ranges
This isn't unclear, just a personal disagreement: Pistols should not be able to fire out to 250m. I suggest Optimum range of Close and Max range of Medium. A really good shoot might hit a target over 50m, but I don't believe anyone will be getting hits, let alone doing damage of consequence at over 100m in combat. Shotguns should probably have their max range dropped back as well.

Having fired pistols at man-sized targets out to 100m, it is quite possible to hit at some extreme ranges. (Prone, braced, careful aim.) The basic physics allow shots to somewhere around 500m...

I was worried someone with experience was going to indicate I was wrong. Would you agree with dropping the Optimum range and keeping the max range at Long?

 

[Libris]

Weapon Ranges
This isn't unclear, just a personal disagreement: Pistols should not be able to fire out to 250m. I suggest Optimum range of Close and Max range of Medium. A really good shoot might hit a target over 50m, but I don't believe anyone will be getting hits, let alone doing damage of consequence at over 100m in combat. Shotguns should probably have their max range dropped back as well.

Having fired pistols at man-sized targets out to 100m, it is quite possible to hit at some extreme ranges. (Prone, braced, careful aim.) The basic physics allow shots to somewhere around 500m...

Well, basic physics will allow shots out to several kilometres.

We did an extremely interesting exercise a long time ago with an L1A1 rifle to see how a little pressure affects your ability. With sufficient time and from a prone position I can put all twenty rounds into a four inch circle at 100 metres over open sights. On another we in full combat gear and stood four yards from a vertical post which was also at the top of a three foot rise. We had sixty rounds and when the target appeared (again at 100 metres) we had to move to the post and fire three rounds. We then moved back to our starting points. I was quite fit then and I only managed to hit the man sized target 50% of the time! The average for the whole unit was similar.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well, basic physics will allow shots out to several kilometres.

We did an extremely interesting exercise a long time ago with an L1A1 rifle to see how a little pressure affects your ability. With sufficient time and from a prone position I can put all twenty rounds into a four inch circle at 100 metres over open sights. On another we in full combat gear and stood four yards from a vertical post which was also at the top of a three foot rise. We had sixty rounds and when the target appeared (again at 100 metres) we had to move to the post and fire three rounds. We then moved back to our starting points. I was quite fit then and I only managed to hit the man sized target 50% of the time! The average for the whole unit was similar.

Eh? Weren't we discussing pistols?

I have no problem with the long-arm ranges, and understand how far they can fire. You can manage accurate, point fire out to at least 2,500m with an M60 on a bipod if you have a spotter that can see fall of shot. Similarly, according to the Australian military, the maximum effective range of the F88 Austeyr (AUG) is "300m, up to 500m for a skilled marksman".

 

[jlcatch]

Actually, this does lead directly to something which bothers me about combat - no stress on the part of the characters. All characters are equally calm and collected, whether they be a 20-year veteran of the Army or Marines or a scholar who has never seen a shot fired in anger. Accounts I have come across of actual gunfights emphasise the fact that most shots miss, no matter how skilled the shooter, because they are being shot at. One documentary I saw a while ago said that according to US police statistics most gunfights took place at less than 10-15 feet and that, at best, about 1 in 6 shots hit - and most hits did not end the fight immediately, although some were instant kills.

So, I think maybe the combat system should have some weighting in for stress (and also that the damage is too predictable). How to do that simply, I'm not sure.

 

[SableWyvern]

Actually, this does lead directly to something which bothers me about combat - no stress on the part of the characters. All characters are equally calm and collected, whether they be a 20-year veteran of the Army or Marines or a scholar who has never seen a shot fired in anger. Accounts I have come across of actual gunfights emphasise the fact that most shots miss, no matter how skilled the shooter, because they are being shot at. One documentary I saw a while ago said that according to US police statistics most gunfights took place at less than 10-15 feet and that, at best, about 1 in 6 shots hit - and most hits did not end the fight immediately, although some were instant kills.

So, I think maybe the combat system should have some weighting in for stress (and also that the damage is too predictable). How to do that simply, I'm not sure.

If you want to apply these sorts of concepts, then you quickly reach a point where 90% of people, be they soldiers or house-wives, simply won't make a serious attempt to actually hit a target in combat. This is the reality of the world we live in -- people don't like trying to kill other people, and most people, even soldiers, won't do it.

This is documented as far back as the Napoleonic era, at least, where senior officers couldn't reconcile their regiments' ability to hit targets in training, with actual casualty rates in combat.

Typically, one or two soldiers in an infantry section are responsible for over 90% of enemy casualties in combat. A soldier, under direct orders, with an NCO or officer standing nearby, will probably shoot to kill, and then return to firing in the general direction of the enemy once he is no longer being directly observed.

Modern training is designed to create an instinctive response to fire at human-shaped targets largely to overcome this common human "flaw".

I doubt very much that players are likely to get much fun out of characters that never shoot to actually hit their targets, however, so games typically ignore all this, even if the designers are aware of the reality.

In short, realism in this area isn't much fun, so ignoring the issue tends to be better than a half-solution that isn't ultimately any more true to reality. Most shots miss because people don't want to hit, not because they're being fired at.

(Excessive use of automatic fire, as well as sustained fire from automatic weapons firing on fixed or limited lanes also contributes to the high shots-fired to rounds hit ratio.)

 

[jlcatch]

Yes, I know that (although there is a lot of doubt as to the actual statistics in combat - the most famous survey from WW2 has apparently turned out to be faked to match the anecdotal evidence), but I wasn't referring to the willingness to shoot at someone so much as the presence of mind to shoot calmly when someone a few feet away is trying to kill you. The US police stats I (sort of) remember were for mostly handguns at short ranges where both parties knew that the only way they were escaping intact was to shoot the other party. Missing was mostly a matter of not standing still long enough to aim properly. They included some accounts from experienced police officers who had been in more than one such fight as illustrations. They were perfectly willing to shoot the criminal concerned, and eventually did, but didn't want to stand still and aim - because that was a good way to get shot themselves.

I'm not arguing for anything complex, just something which recognises that characters who have made careers of this should be less prone to it, while characters from non-combatant careers should be more so. Some games have modelled that.

 

[AKAramis]

Oft quoth stats for vietnam era US military:

In any given engagement:
1 in 10 fired for effect
3 in 10 fired at all.
1 in 10 never fired at all.

In desert storm, the brass quoted
For US marines
3 in 20 fired for effect
10 in 20 fired.

(NBC news show, around 1996, don't recall which one.)

The interesting thing is that the claim also includes that of those three, only one is consistent, but the 10 firing tends to be fairly consistent, according to the NCO's I've talked to. They (the NCO's) do claim that the 50% who fire are definitely NOT consistent; about 25% of troops fire consistently, and the other 75% each fire about a third of the time.

And the one who never fired is often claimed to have been the squad's medic, but no official data has specified anything of the sort.

The question becomes, Is it worth modeling in the core rules?
(personally, I think not. Save it for Mercenary.)

 

[weasel_fierce]

I tackled the "a units fire isnt every man firing" in my mini's rules. Even from men firing, a lot wont be firing at anything in particular, or the specific spot of bush or rubble they are blasting will have nothing there.

For an RPG though, Im happy letting skill reflect the characters ability to function under stress as well.
People getting shot at will presumably spend some time dodging, thus reducing their initiative and limited the amount of shooting back thats occuring.

 

[donm61873]

I agree that if you want to model this, put it in a supplement. In the core rules, I don't see a lot of players eager to have this modeled in the combat system.

Is there an RPG that does model this?

 

[weasel_fierce]

Twilight 2000 / Traveller The New Era gives characters different initiative ratings based on their relative combat experience, which is a bit in the same direction.

Godlike has some optional rules on the website covering lack of aggression etc

 

[AKAramis]

Tasks not listed for medical
Healing TOO good
Use current or base endurance for healing rates

I just finished up the aftermath of the combat from last week. we had no task definition for first aid, so I used Average Medical Int, 1-6min.

Since the doc had medical 3... that resulted in 6 hits back for almost every attribute. This is almost too much.

Further, this left the captured pirates fine 2 days later.

I used current end, BTW. All pirates were KO'd.

Still don't know the penalties to actions for one stat zeroed...


Time and Success.
Rather than basing it on `1-6, base it on 0-10 (I've had all of these come up with no tasks rolled outside Routine-Formidable, average tonight was a 7...)
I'd suggest

Res  Time  Effect      Cont/Coop Failure      Cont/Coop  
 1   x10   Marginal       +1     Superlative     -5
 2    x9   Marginal       +1     Superlative     -5
 3    x8   Poor           +2     Exceptional     -4
 4    x7   Poor           +2     Exceptional     -4
 5    x6   Average        +3     Average         -3
 6    x5   Average        +3     Average         -3
 7    x4   Exceptional    +4     Poor            -2
 8    x3   Exceptional    +4     Poor            -2
 9    x2   Superlative    +5     Marginal        -1
10+   x1   Superlative    +5     Marginal        -1

 

[Tychus]

Is there an RPG that does model this?

I'd say almost every RPG. It's one of the things abstracted into a to-hit roll.

I hope no one is seriously suggesting that players shouldn't have control over whether their characters can attack.

As for the effect with regard to NPCs, does a GM really need rules for this? Just apply a negative DM, or only have a fraction of the group fire.

 

[captainjack23]

Is there an RPG that does model this?

I'd say almost every RPG. It's one of the things abstracted into a to-hit roll.

I hope no one is seriously suggesting that players shouldn't have control over whether their characters can attack.

As for the effect with regard to NPCs, does a GM really need rules for this? Just apply a negative DM, or only have a fraction of the group fire.

Thank you.

I don't see Traveller as needing or properly being a set of ultra-modern skirmish rules, or ASL in space. Plenty of those around.
As long as one can resolve combat quickly, and only kill the players who deserve it, or do really really stupid or unlucky/risky stuff, I'm happy.

Historically, Trav has generally had pretty lame/generic/no frills combat.
CT certainly, T4, as well, MT ? Not sure, but I think so .

While it may be the most modified part of the rules, it may be worth considering that the appeal of Traveller is not necc as a skirmish game or combat simulation, and it has remained popular despite this.

For full anorak combat rules, saving it the merc suppliment would be good, or until then, use stargrunt ?