Traveller Weapon Playtest Comments

[Condottiere]

Shadowrun used to let you design your own guns. I came to the conclusion that I'd equip my mercenaries principally with an extended range SMG, and train them for close assaults, supported by extended range assault rifles for sniper work, since the skill tree placed both SMG and assault rifles in the same primary skill set, making them somewhat interchangeable.

 

[middenface]

Just in case you haven't seen this, this the "OpFor" World Equipment Guide, 2011 version. This gives a fairly good idea what TL6-7-8 weapons can do. The even divide them up by tech level! Granted they call them "tiers", but they more or less line up.

Word Equipment Guide 2011

Warning, it's fairly large file

Wow, that is really amazing, thanks for the linky. Gives me an idea or tow I mean two..

Give ranges in Metres?, bit more detail than is needed, perhaps an optional system?
System as it is, is neat and simple, but it ain't perfect.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Okay, new proposal from the COTI forums for weapon skills, and one I like - so I am looking for someone/somepeople to argue against it and convince me it should _not_ be done

Break down weapons skills/specialities thus;

Gun Combat (personal/civilian): Covers most pistols, shotguns and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Gun Combat (military): Rifles, MGs, higher tech things and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Heavy Weapons (man portable): To include existing man portable (FGMP/PGMP, etc), launchers and flamethrowers
Heavy Weapons (artillery): Really big guns
Heavy Weapons (vehicle): The stuff you get on tanks

I like the reduction in specialities a lot, bearing in mind once you have level 1 in a speciality, you get 0 in all the rest.

There _are_ arguments to be made that Weapon X is different from Weapon Y. But, in a game like Traveller, how much detail do we really need in this? Do we need people specialised in an SMG, MG, _and_ a Rifle, or do we just want someone we know can use all three without problem?

I know what I want to do (!), but I would like to see at least something approaching consensus with you chaps.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Give ranges in Metres?, bit more detail than is needed, perhaps an optional system?

For all weapons?

So not needed in a game like this, I am afraid...

 

[middenface]

How about looking at the Ranges for the strategic/heavy stuff that is expressed as KM instead of 'rifle' 'pistol' etc.
Does that mean they do no get range mods>? Should they have a minimum range?

As Colin pointed out, the big weapons in the Supplement 5-6:VHB have a range mod chart.
But it does not cover the 5 range bands up to Distant. (personnel range is a no no for the big guns)

 

[locarno24]

Well, I'm not going to throw toys out of pram either way WRT skills. One thing I do approve of in that list is the idea of a skill explicitely for vehicle weapons - and I would say that a 'vehicle gunner' skill is deserved regardless of the weapon.

That is: whether the weapon is a heavy rifle in a remote turret, or a 150mm smoothbore, operating a vehicle turret is a fundamentally different animal to firing a weapon from the shoulder.

The difference to the user between a Remote Weapon Station with an LMG and an LMG in your hands is probably more than the difference between an RWS with an LMG and an RWS with a tank's main gun.

 

[MongooseMatt]

One thing I do approve of in that list is the idea of a skill explicitely for vehicle weapons - and I would say that a 'vehicle gunner' skill is deserved regardless of the weapon.

I would agree with this.

 

[Stainless]

I have no time to look at this now, perhaps next week when I'm on holiday.

However, is this the prelude to a 2nd edition of the core rules???!

 

[MongooseMatt]

However, is this the prelude to a 2nd edition of the core rules???!

No. However, as I just posted on another forum...


We are not looking at doing a revised/second edition of the core rulebook, in any shape or form at the moment. However, we _are_ starting to think about what such a beast would look like. That means every supplement we do now is with a possible/potential revised rulebook in mind, be it with rules, graphical layout or anything else (so as little as possible gets invalidated by a new rulebook).

You can see this with our look at the Gun Combat/Heavy Weapons skills - what we decide here will very likely be what is done in a revised edition of the core book. The same applies to the vehicle and building design systems, and (you haven't seen it yet) the double page layout of careers, which now include the D66 events table, rather than having it wrap around to a third page.

So, all your suggestions are getting taken on board at the moment, even if they might not necessarily appear in this specific Mercenary book. A lot of planning going on at the moment...

 

[mlooney]

Okay, new proposal from the COTI forums for weapon skills, and one I like - so I am looking for someone/somepeople to argue against it and convince me it should _not_ be done

Break down weapons skills/specialities thus;

Gun Combat (personal/civilian): Covers most pistols, shotguns and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Gun Combat (military): Rifles, MGs, higher tech things and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Heavy Weapons (man portable): To include existing man portable (FGMP/PGMP, etc), launchers and flamethrowers
Heavy Weapons (artillery): Really big guns
Heavy Weapons (vehicle): The stuff you get on tanks

I like the reduction in specialities a lot, bearing in mind once you have level 1 in a speciality, you get 0 in all the rest.

There _are_ arguments to be made that Weapon X is different from Weapon Y. But, in a game like Traveller, how much detail do we really need in this? Do we need people specialised in an SMG, MG, _and_ a Rifle, or do we just want someone we know can use all three without problem?

I know what I want to do (!), but I would like to see at least something approaching consensus with you chaps.

Got my vote. Need to make sure that the various AFV crews get Heavy Weapons(vehicle) instead of "Gunnery, Turret" like a bunch of them have now.

 

[mlooney]

Just in case you haven't seen this, this the "OpFor" World Equipment Guide, 2011 version. This gives a fairly good idea what TL6-7-8 weapons can do. The even divide them up by tech level! Granted they call them "tiers", but they more or less line up.

Word Equipment Guide 2011

Warning, it's fairly large file

Wow, that is really amazing, thanks for the linky. Gives me an idea or tow I mean two..

One of my "when I have time" projects is to convert that (and Vol II, the air/air defense book) into a "catalog" from Interarms. Mainly for flavor, even though I've got some ideas about AFV rules

 

[Nerhesi]

Okay, new proposal from the COTI forums for weapon skills, and one I like - so I am looking for someone/somepeople to argue against it and convince me it should _not_ be done

Break down weapons skills/specialities thus;

Gun Combat (personal/civilian): Covers most pistols, shotguns and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Gun Combat (military): Rifles, MGs, higher tech things and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Heavy Weapons (man portable): To include existing man portable (FGMP/PGMP, etc), launchers and flamethrowers
Heavy Weapons (artillery): Really big guns
Heavy Weapons (vehicle): The stuff you get on tanks

I like the reduction in specialities a lot, bearing in mind once you have level 1 in a speciality, you get 0 in all the rest.

There _are_ arguments to be made that Weapon X is different from Weapon Y. But, in a game like Traveller, how much detail do we really need in this? Do we need people specialised in an SMG, MG, _and_ a Rifle, or do we just want someone we know can use all three without problem?

I know what I want to do (!), but I would like to see at least something approaching consensus with you chaps.

I like this a lot Matt. Keeps it clean and simple - we are talking 2 specialties for gun combat (personal vs military)?

Is this going to be in mercenary Matt? Or is this for the upcoming second edition clean up of traveller? Thanks

 

[MongooseMatt]

I like this a lot Matt. Keeps it clean and simple - we are talking 2 specialties for gun combat (personal vs military)?

Yes, with a possible third for 'weird' stuff.

Is this going to be in mercenary Matt? Or is this for the upcoming second edition clean up of traveller? Thanks

Mercenary. To reiterate, there is _no_ second edition core rulebook in the works at this time.

 

[Nerhesi]

Sounds good Matt.

SMGs/Pistols/PDWs - great. You definitely want SMGs/Carbines/whatever here so that we dont run into the "one super group" scenario. Pistols was very lacklustre last time around the minute you had stuff past TL 7 or 8 available.

Assault/Battle/Sniper rifles and MGs - This is good. It will still be the most common group but as long as it doesn't contain SMGs or Shotguns, there will be incentive to use other weapons.

As for the third one, I've consulted with the gaming crew, and you may want to consider grouping Shotgun with some "weird" stuff so that it also has more appeal.

The heavy weapon groupings look great - no feedback from the crew.

 

[locarno24]

Agreed on pistols and PDWs. Again, the line between heavy autopistols and light SMGs is so blurry that it's acceptable to mash them together, and it does provide 'pistoleer' types with weapons able to threaten riflemen.

 

[dragoner]

PDW an actual class of weapons. It is what they are calling the weird sub rifle sized weapons now. Classic SMG don't really exists as new weapon designs. Which is not to say that older designs like the MP-5 aren't being built, often in large numbers. The modern "PDW" have the "advantage" of looking like a SF weapon.
What the Wikipedia has to say about them.

By saying PDW you cover every thing from a M-1 carbine (not the same as the M-1 Rifle!) through the classic SMG, and the "modern" mutants.

Interesting, score one for political correctness in sanitizing the name SMG. Certain names have always had this though, assault rifle comes from nazi propaganda re-naming the successor to the MP-40, the StG-44, when it had been developed as an SMG basically. Looking at the weapons, they seem to be pistol type SMG's; and where as the common SMG has been replaced by a carbine, such as the M-4.

 

[dragoner]

Give ranges in Metres?, bit more detail than is needed, perhaps an optional system?
System as it is, is neat and simple, but it ain't perfect.

Most real world detail in firearms deal in meter ranges, so it isn't a hard conversion. IMO, one of the nice things in the old CT book 4, such as with the Gauss Rifle, is that it gave extreme range beyond normal rifles, providing some standoff capability.

 

[dragoner]

Okay, new proposal from the COTI forums for weapon skills, and one I like - so I am looking for someone/somepeople to argue against it and convince me it should _not_ be done

Break down weapons skills/specialities thus;

Gun Combat (personal/civilian): Covers most pistols, shotguns and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Gun Combat (military): Rifles, MGs, higher tech things and possibly SMGs/PDWs.
Heavy Weapons (man portable): To include existing man portable (FGMP/PGMP, etc), launchers and flamethrowers
Heavy Weapons (artillery): Really big guns
Heavy Weapons (vehicle): The stuff you get on tanks

I like the reduction in specialities a lot, bearing in mind once you have level 1 in a speciality, you get 0 in all the rest.

There _are_ arguments to be made that Weapon X is different from Weapon Y. But, in a game like Traveller, how much detail do we really need in this? Do we need people specialised in an SMG, MG, _and_ a Rifle, or do we just want someone we know can use all three without problem?

I know what I want to do (!), but I would like to see at least something approaching consensus with you chaps.

Gamewise, I just let the players decide, skill wise. The crunch of original CT is that specific weapons had dex bonuses or penalties, but where all characters were assumed to have lvl 0 in common firearms.

There isn't much difference between a lot of civilian and military weapons, I own both and AK-47 and M-16/M-4 civilian model and have fired the military versions, skill is the same, the only real difference is civilian models aren't select fire. As per military skill, old CT book 4 had "combat rifleman" which we took to mean you had you basic/AIT and could do those things outlined in the Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks; so that would be your rifle, MG, LAW, Claymore, Hand Grenade and so on. Further skill levels represented specializations in one type of weapon.

Some claim there is difference between a shotgunner and rifleman, others don't. Pistols figure more prominently in point shooting, close quarters battle type situations; but a short shotgun like a pistol grip pump is there too. Though basically for myself, I figure I could basically use any small arm out of the box reasonably well at level 0, and I am not an expert. Breakouts could be anywhere you want them, pistol, rifle, energy weapon, etc.; one thing about vehicle weapons is that the controls change by tech level, imo at higher tech levels you would be using just a gunnery suite, not mechanical controls.

I still think that tying the AP notation to the damage multiplier vs armor would be nice.

 

[Benzaiten26]

In regard to narrowing down the specializations under gun combat.

Principles, usage and maintenance are the same for all slug weapons. Moving from one weapon to the next is easy once trained. In fact, the only difference between pistols, carbines, sub-machine guns and rifles is the length of the barrel and/or rates of fire. So, once you've grasped the concepts of carrying the weapon on your back, instead of in a holster and flipping a switch to a different setting you're good to go.

The same could be said about energy weapons.

I don't understand why these were ever separated in the first place.

BTW, I'm retired U.S. ex-military with an extensive weapons background and have been playing Traveller since first edition.

 

[dragoner]

I don't understand why these were ever separated in the first place.

Because in Classic, there were dex bonuses and penalties assigned by weapon; imo at least.

Maybe the best solution would be to develop (or pick) one unified theory about firearms usage and function and build from there.