weapons physical simulation

[steve98052]

Question for weapons gearheads:

I just got the T4 CD, and I see that it includes an edition of Fire, Fusion, and Steel and lots of other good stuff like the Milieu 0 setting (which was the main reason I bought it).

I also have lots of GURPS books, including Vehicles 2 and most or all GURPS Traveller books.

So, if I'm looking in terms of physical simulation (as opposed to things like ease of use), which sources most accurately represent weapons that conform with real world physics, particularly real or plausible slug-throwers?

- The T4 FFS rules
- Rules from another Traveller edition
- A Mongoose book I don't know about
- GURPS Vehicles 2
- Some other GURPS edition (All I have of 4th are the core books.)
- Some other game altogether

I know that a weapons gearhead made a GURPS Traveller weapons spreadsheet that goes beyond Vehicles 2 in physical simulation; I probably still have a copy of it somewhere. That's probably the right answer if the answer is in GURPS territory.

Obviously when it's time to make the final translation from physics to game rules (to-hit dice and hit point damage) the simulation diverges from pursuit of physics to pursuit of game play. So I'm only asking about the portion that remains in the physics domain.

Also, I've been away for a while. Greetings to all who remember me from before the pandemic.

 

[Condottiere]

Traveller Five, with it's extensive technology design sequences.

 

[Galadrion]

I've always considered the TNE version of FFS to be the closest version of Traveller to a simulation system. T4 had the potential to take that place, but was so buggy and error-ridden that it failed rather miserably.

GURPS and T5 are better designed from a game playability standpoint (at least, the current version of T5 - the beta-test version was... lackluster, to be kind), but they are definitely game systems, not simulationistic. (The real world doesn't particularly care about balance or fairness.) And, compared to FFS (either version), they are very abstract. Personally, I rather like the flexibility of TNE: FFS, but I do have to admit that it's not particularly neophyte-friendly.

Overall, I'd say the the Mongoose systems are a nice balance between the extremes. First edition has a larger body of material, but probably won't see much if any further development. Second edition does have the active development path, but doesn't have as much material available at the moment.

 

[steve98052]

I've always considered the TNE version of FFS to be the closest version of Traveller to a simulation system. T4 had the potential to take that place, but was so buggy and error-ridden that it failed rather miserably.

Aren't there enough errata to cover the errors in T4? Or was it broken in design rather than just copy-edit issues that could be fixed in errata?

One thing that's great about SJ Games is that they have errata for practically everything.

GURPS and T5 are better designed from a game playability standpoint (at least, the current version of T5 - the beta-test version was... lackluster, to be kind), but they are definitely game systems, not simulationistic. (The real world doesn't particularly care about balance or fairness.) And, compared to FFS (either version), they are very abstract. Personally, I rather like the flexibility of TNE: FFS, but I do have to admit that it's not particularly neophyte-friendly.

Interesting to see anything GURPS labeled abstract. I know there's a spreadsheet by a player that goes even deeper into the physics of ballistics before getting into the conversion from joules to hit points, but it doesn't change a huge amount.

I've also seen the claim that armor strength should be quadratic with thickness rather than linear, but I don't know whether that's for real.

Overall, I'd say the the Mongoose systems are a nice balance between the extremes. . . .

Where in the Mongoose books, first or second, are design rules for things other than ships?

Much thanks.

Traveller Five, with it's extensive technology design sequences.

Thanks.

 

[Lurking Grue]

For conventional weapons and lasers, you can't go wrong with BTRC/Greg Porter's Guns, Guns, Guns. It has conversion rules for TNE and T4 (and many other systems) and is the most 'simulationistic' approach to weapon design for RPGs I know of. And I've spent long hours with e.g. GURPS Vehicles 2nd ed and many different Traveller design systems. Here's a link: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/1107/Guns-Guns-Guns-v11

Greg Porter was in the design team for T4, if memory serves. Unfortunately, as with most of T4, the design work was brought low by the reams of errata etc.

 

[steve98052]

I'm quite impressed with Guns, Guns, Guns, but a bit disappointed that I haven't heard back on the proof of purchase for a spreadsheet e-mail. It's pretty involved to use without a spreadsheet, and I don't want to write my own if there's a debugged spreadsheet I could download