Weapons in Mercenary

[Patron Zero]

I think there will never be a 'definitive' game reference guide for firearms and supporting munitions.

That said, to all rules (and subsequent collections of such) does-do exist the exception(s) and no matter how much empirical research may be done on the subject personal experience will be the constant monkey wrench in the equations.

Not to site as a canonical source but so often on the TV series Mythbusters has commonly assumed-data supportive conclusions been proven incorrect. Specifically those segments focusing on firearms and explosives are most enlightening and educative.

The above presented and accepted at face value, a good set of quick reference books cataloging individual weapons and ordnance as well as 'atypical' damage results for d20 would be welcome*.


* All present-proposed publications given due respect and acknowledgment.

 

[collins355]

the LMG uses the heavy weapon skill (I would use the man portable sub-skill). And the LMG uses the range and modifiers for assault weapons.

Take care

E. Herdan

Which is an extraordinary design decision. A light machine gun in MGT becomes less accurate (and hence effective) at ranges exceeding fifty metres than an antique rifle/rifle/autorifle. Do the authors believe an LMG is something like an SMG/carbine only for close in work? This runs completely contrary to the purpose of an LMG as providing a base of fire covering maneuver elements.

It is these kind of flaws that really expose Mercenary from a gameplay perspective, rather than some of the more commonly cited complaints about flaming balls of plasma, etc.

Could it be that Mongoose sees "LMG" as the equivalent to varmint-caliber weapons like FN-MINIMI/M249, HK MG4 or the RPK-Family instead of the older concept of full-caliber weapons like the MG42/MG3, FN-MAG/M240 and PK? In that case it becomes explainabel

Not at all. Even SAW-type weapons have effective ranges in the hundreds of metres (800 metres or thereabouts for the Minimi).

And this is not one of those issues that might be 'in dispute' - nobody would dispute that LMGs are at least as effective in range terms as rifles. In MGT they are not. What infantry squad is going to rely on covering fire from a weapon that is most effective at 50 metres or less?

 

[Shiloh]

the LMG uses the heavy weapon skill (I would use the man portable sub-skill). And the LMG uses the range and modifiers for assault weapons.

Take care

E. Herdan

Which is an extraordinary design decision. A light machine gun in MGT becomes less accurate (and hence effective) at ranges exceeding fifty metres than an antique rifle/rifle/autorifle. Do the authors believe an LMG is something like an SMG/carbine only for close in work? This runs completely contrary to the purpose of an LMG as providing a base of fire covering maneuver elements.

It is these kind of flaws that really expose Mercenary from a gameplay perspective, rather than some of the more commonly cited complaints about flaming balls of plasma, etc.

Could it be that Mongoose sees "LMG" as the equivalent to varmint-caliber weapons like FN-MINIMI/M249, HK MG4 or the RPK-Family instead of the older concept of full-caliber weapons like the MG42/MG3, FN-MAG/M240 and PK? In that case it becomes explainabel

Even if it does, the role (range, long burst capability, suppressive fire) of the weapon is the same, it's just more portable and makes slightly smaller holes in people.

 

[MadDog]

Could it be that Mongoose sees "LMG" as the equivalent to varmint-caliber weapons like FN-MINIMI/M249, HK MG4 or the RPK-Family instead of the older concept of full-caliber weapons like the MG42/MG3, FN-MAG/M240 and PK? In that case it becomes explainabel

Except that the LMG does more damage than a rifle in game terms.

Mad Dog

 

[dreamingbadger]

The weapon does not have to be a higher caliber in order to do more damage, for example a round that is "ballistically unstable" may have some of the caharacteristics that we are talking about here (e.g. it tumbles and so loses range and causes increased trauma as a result)

 

[MadDog]

The weapon does not have to be a higher caliber in order to do more damage, for example a round that is "ballistically unstable" may have some of the caharacteristics that we are talking about here (e.g. it tumbles and so loses range and causes increased trauma as a result)

If the round "tumbles" on impact, then it would have poor penetration capabilities - which it does not in game terms.

The weapon stats need revision. Some badly.

Mad Dog

 

[AKAramis]

The weapon stats need revision. Some badly.

Mad Dog

Most definitely. Preferably by someone with a clue about weapons and their use.

 

[B_Steele]

Preferably by someone with a clue about weapons and their use.

So much better than that "other book" which has now been recycled into something more useful - bedding material for a rodent.

I have let ALOT of these sorts of comments about my knowledge concerning weaponry, technology and the like slide off my abnormally thick skin. But I think I want to address something, if only to clarify where I was coming from on alot of the things people have complained about.

I would simply like to point out that as a game designer it is my job to find the happy medium between fun/interesting/fair/accurate/effective and not game-breaking. It is very easy for someone to say "that is not how it should be" or "I did not like this part of the book", but when our playtesters, editors and players (many that I have spoken to, anyway) as a whole believe the product to be a fun part of the game...I know that we have done right by the main body of gaming fans out there; even if we unfortunately have let down some of the most vocal ones.

I will admit that some of my weapons in Mercenary apparently fell short with some of the old Traveller fans and with some of the "gaming-realists" out there, which I am sorry to hear (dare I mention magrail weapons? :roll: ). I wish I could have done better by all of our fans and readers, but I know that I cannot - it is not possible. I can only hope to make a product that doesn't break the system, is fun and fair to use, and appeals to the majority of our readers.

I am truly saddened that Mercenary fell short in one area for so many of you; I really enjoyed writing it. I thank those that have given good criticism, as I know I will think about those posts when I find myself with more Traveller design ahead of me.

Cheers to all,
Bry

 

[rust]

Don't worry.

Writing about weapons in roleplaying games in a way that makes every-
one happy is absolutely impossible. I have seen many attempts over
the last thirty years, and all of them failed, at least in the opinion of a
number of vocal critics (sometimes including me).

 

[Emperor Herdan]

Preferably by someone with a clue about weapons and their use.

So much better than that "other book" which has now been recycled into something more useful - bedding material for a rodent.

I have let ALOT of these sorts of comments about my knowledge concerning weaponry, technology and the like slide off my abnormally thick skin. But I think I want to address something, if only to clarify where I was coming from on alot of the things people have complained about.

(big snip)

I am truly saddened that Mercenary fell short in one area for so many of you; I really enjoyed writing it. I thank those that have given good criticism, as I know I will think about those posts when I find myself with more Traveller design ahead of me.

Cheers to all,
Bry

Dear Bry;
To quote an old saw " If you try to please everybody, you please nobody"
and its far easier to comment upon something someone else has created than to sit down and actually create something anew (even if it is based upon a previous incarnation...).

Yes there are "mistakes" in some peoples eyes (mine included...) but as a whole, the MGT system is very well thought out (as a whole). How much is sold is the real barometer. Likewise you are willing to listen to others suggestions and that speaks well of you.

The parts I disagree with, I either make a different ruling for MTU, reinterpret it for MTU, or leave it alone.

Also its the vocal ones you hear from, and not the ones that are happy and having fun (smile) (and even the vocals are having fun, ne'er you doubt it...)

With something as diverse as Traveller, you're never, never going to make a 100% universally acclaimed product. Heck, even Mr. Miller can't do that . While I know you'll certainly try to make that goal, don't feel badly when you don't. (I, for one, am just as happy not going back to the old days of multiple charts for DM regarding weapon, ammo type, distance, ad nausea.)

Anyway

Take care

E. Herdan

 

[collins355]

Preferably by someone with a clue about weapons and their use.

So much better than that "other book" which has now been recycled into something more useful - bedding material for a rodent.

I have let ALOT of these sorts of comments about my knowledge concerning weaponry, technology and the like slide off my abnormally thick skin. But I think I want to address something, if only to clarify where I was coming from on alot of the things people have complained about.

I would simply like to point out that as a game designer it is my job to find the happy medium between fun/interesting/fair/accurate/effective and not game-breaking. It is very easy for someone to say "that is not how it should be" or "I did not like this part of the book", but when our playtesters, editors and players (many that I have spoken to, anyway) as a whole believe the product to be a fun part of the game...I know that we have done right by the main body of gaming fans out there; even if we unfortunately have let down some of the most vocal ones.

I will admit that some of my weapons in Mercenary apparently fell short with some of the old Traveller fans and with some of the "gaming-realists" out there, which I am sorry to hear (dare I mention magrail weapons? :roll: ). I wish I could have done better by all of our fans and readers, but I know that I cannot - it is not possible. I can only hope to make a product that doesn't break the system, is fun and fair to use, and appeals to the majority of our readers.

I am truly saddened that Mercenary fell short in one area for so many of you; I really enjoyed writing it. I thank those that have given good criticism, as I know I will think about those posts when I find myself with more Traveller design ahead of me.

Cheers to all,
Bry

You shouldn't take it all on yourself, or pay attention to mindless fanboy exaltation or damnation. The real question is why Mongoose saw fit to produce this book without running it through playtest/sanity check by a known military grognard, who would have picked up 90 percent of the really grating bits in a very short space of time, allowing the opportunity to adjust them.

 

[Delerium]

The same reason they don't seem to employ a proofreader.

 

[Anonymous]

Bry,
I liked it. And I told you the same at Gencon. Someone earlier siad, if you try to please everyone you will end up pleasing no one. And you will never be able to please everyone. If it was possible we as gamers would only have one rpg, the end all be all of rpgs, but we dont so dont sweat what some think they know as best.
Prophet

 

[MadDog]

I have let ALOT of these sorts of comments about my knowledge concerning weaponry, technology and the like slide off my abnormally thick skin. But I think I want to address something, if only to clarify where I was coming from on alot of the things people have complained about.

First, I have Mercenary (PDF) and I enjoy the book as a whole. However, obsessive-compulsives like myself like to sweat the details.

I get the feeling that you were restricted to staying within the bounds of the original series - in which case, I think the fault lies back many years ago.

I would imagine that one of the big problems with a sci-fi game is scope. In the future, you have to incorporate the multitude of weapon technologies that exist now, as well as trying to forecast what will be invented in the future. Trying to strike a balance between lethality and reality is a difficult task at best. Few games get it right in my opinion.

I dont know what you, the designer, can do at this point, if you arent allowed to change anything. I think as long as you are aware that there are "issues" with the weapon/armor balance at some levels, that will placate some of the angry natives.

I think it is still possible to create a good armor/weapons/lethality balance without too much in the way of troubles.

1) tweak the typical ranged weapons damage values up and down a few points here and there to generate a gradual range of damages. For example a small compact slug thrower using non-metal slugs (body pistol) is unlikely to generate the same damage as a more conventional autopistol/revolver. Knock it down a point ? A light machinegun that uses the same type of bullet as a rifle should probably do around the same damage as that rifle. Maybe a point higher ?

2) re-examine vehicular weapon and armor compared to hand held weapons. There should be no way a guy with an ACR can penetrate tank armor (which he can at this time).

3) re-examine vehicular weapons vs. starship weapons. Typical starship weapons dont take up that much more space than some vehicular weapons. So why the big difference ?

4) consider the effect of heavy weapons on the game (AT guns, artillery, FGMP, etc) and consider if they should be limited in some way when firing at man-sized targets. Penalty to hit ?

To be brutally honest, I doubt anything will change. While I like Mongoose products in general, things tend not to ever get fixed answered, or errated (from my experiences with Conan). Although, I suppose Mongoose could sell an "Advanced Weapons Supplement" which might be a happy medium for everyone who cares.

Everyone is a critic, so you shouldnt take it personally.

Mad Dog

 

[B_Steele]

Don't mistake my post as taking it personally guys; I have no hard feelings (except maybe toward those who constantly bash our company and offer nothing constructive, but I digress). I just wanted to tell those naysayers out there that were being helpful in their remarks that they are not falling on deaf ears.

Thanks for the advice in places where I may be lacking,
Bry

 

[Klaus Kipling]

I dont know what you, the designer, can do at this point, if you arent allowed to change anything. I think as long as you are aware that there are "issues" with the weapon/armor balance at some levels, that will placate some of the angry natives.

Um, have to totally disagree on this point. Having run 4 games with these rules now, I have to say weapon damage and armour rating are pretty much balanced right.

If armour ratings were higher, combat would take forever. If damage was higher, armour would not be much use at all.

As for an ACR being able to penetrate a hover-trak's armour. Yes, very infrequently, or to little consequence. Anyway, a hover-trak is not an MBT, going by the description, and even so, why should not an ACR be able to penetrate light armoured vehicles? An ACR is not the same as an M-16, it's 3 tech levels higher than what we have today, so why should the hover-trak be totally impervious?

 

[B_Steele]

Um, have to totally disagree on this point. Having run 4 games with these rules now, I have to say weapon damage and armour rating are pretty much balanced right.

If armour ratings were higher, combat would take forever. If damage was higher, armour would not be much use at all.

I am glad to hear that you are finding this as well. Like I said. I tested these numbers for fairness and fun, and I am glad to see your are having both in your game.

-Bry

 

[Emperor Herdan]

Um, have to totally disagree on this point. Having run 4 games with these rules now, I have to say weapon damage and armour rating are pretty much balanced right.

If armour ratings were higher, combat would take forever. If damage was higher, armour would not be much use at all.

I am glad to hear that you are finding this as well. Like I said. I tested these numbers for fairness and fun, and I am glad to see your are having both in your game.

-Bry

I think that Klaus Kipling pretty much hit it on the head with his comments Bry.

I also agree with his observations. Sometimes its well to remember that MGT is trying to be more "open" (hmm not quite the right word... inclusive? ease-of-play for the new-to-traveller?...) version of Traveller (which is good as I've 3 new-to-traveller/SCi-Fi RPG in my group).

Enough information for "realism" for most players, with a good pace (nothing really slows down the game as a whole) of playing.

Take care.

E. Herdan

 

[MadDog]

As for an ACR being able to penetrate a hover-trak's armour. Yes, very infrequently, or to little consequence. Anyway, a hover-trak is not an MBT, going by the description, and even so, why should not an ACR be able to penetrate light armoured vehicles? An ACR is not the same as an M-16, it's 3 tech levels higher than what we have today, so why should the hover-trak be totally impervious?

From Mercenary: "A bit of a misnomer, the hovertrak anti-armour tank has no ‘trak’ portion of it at all."

Call it a light tank or heavy tank or MBT, but it should have the armor to shrug off rifle rounds with complete and total immunity.

But hey, lets find the heaviest piece of armor we can: the G-Carrier (TL15), with an armor of 25. Yes, you can no longer penetrate the armor with a TL10 ACR. However, lets go get a light machine gun (TL 5, 4D6) !

Yes, the ACR is the M-16 or a very close derivative of it. Notice it does the same damage as the rifle/autorifle/assault rifle. Even if you assume the Tl10 grants it some amazing penetration capability, one wonders why TL10 armor isnt just as good as keeping things out.

Mad Dog

 

[collins355]

I dont know what you, the designer, can do at this point, if you arent allowed to change anything. I think as long as you are aware that there are "issues" with the weapon/armor balance at some levels, that will placate some of the angry natives.

Um, have to totally disagree on this point. Having run 4 games with these rules now, I have to say weapon damage and armour rating are pretty much balanced right.

If armour ratings were higher, combat would take forever. If damage was higher, armour would not be much use at all.

As for an ACR being able to penetrate a hover-trak's armour. Yes, very infrequently, or to little consequence. Anyway, a hover-trak is not an MBT, going by the description, and even so, why should not an ACR be able to penetrate light armoured vehicles? An ACR is not the same as an M-16, it's 3 tech levels higher than what we have today, so why should the hover-trak be totally impervious?

Disagree somewhat with the second half of this. For a start, the original post did not mention the hovertrack at all, but even if it did, the characterisation of the 'hovertrack' in the book definitely suggests a heavy well-protected tank-like vehicle - what part of 'anti armor tank' and 'behemoth' (MGT Mercenary page 105) is open to interpretation? Yet it is vulnerable to an ACR (37.5 percent chance of inflicting at least one roll on the vehicle damage table) or Gauss Rifle (more than fifty percent chance) using burst fire? A TL11 laser rifle has a 77.85 percent chance of inflicting damage. And RAM grenades would make mincemeat of it.

Remember, this is a TL12 vehicle allegedly costing MCr5, and yet weapons costing a few thousand credits at most can threaten it. While an ACR might be more advanced than today's rifles, remember that the armour protection material of a TL12 tank should be a good deal more advanced than that of today as well. Small arms should not threaten it.