Another look at damage and healing

[tbeard1999]

There's also the point that all the clever looking new ammo innovations that inspired MWM and co when initially writing bk4 and the rest have come to nothing in the larger scheme of things. There's no point in sticking in ammo types that never lived up to their supposed potential in the 80's in a game written for the 21C.

I have two problems with this (three, if you include the observation that this seems clearly to be a post-hoc rationalization intended to excuse sloppiness).

First, this is a significant departure from established Traveller canon. *If* the designer actually believed that the ACR needed to be far less effective than in previous versions of Traveller, then I think he should have explained this in the rules. Personally, I think that this is a careless mistake, rather than any intentional design decision. I recall during playtesting that the designer seemed unaware that assault rifles actually use less powerful cartridges than rifles. So "careless mistake" seems far more plausible to me than "intentional deviation from established canon".

Second, you seem to be suggesting that there will be no significant evolution in chemically propelled slug throwers over the next few thousand years. This seems to be unsupported by the recent history of weapons technology.

In larger calibers, both HEAP and kinetic energy penetrators have seen tremendous improvements in performance over the last 30 years. And while small arms have improved less, the reason is economics, rather than technology. Replacing a combat rifle is an extremely expensive proposition. The weapons themselves cost a lot of money. Ammunition stockpiles that have accumulated over decades must be replaced by new ammunition. Allies must agree to the new ammunition, or logistical requirements are complicated dramatically. There are no inherent technological reasons that require small arms performance to remain stagnant at 1950s levels.

In any case, these rationales seem like little more than an attempt to excuse sloppiness on the part of the MGT design team. I personally expect that they will correct the error in Mercenary, so I wouldn't be too eager to defend the current ratings, if I were you.

EDIT: Of course, giving the ACR a significantly greater armor penetrating capability will expose the primary weakness of equating penetration and damage -- the high penetration weapon will be unreasonably lethal against lightly armored targets. So some rules work will need to be done. At the very minimum, I think that MGT should include an "armor piercing" damage class. Such rounds would halve the target's armor protection. The ACR could be classified as an AP weapon and its damage could remain the same as the assault rifle. Yet the ACR would be much more capable against armored targets. This mechanic would probably work well enough for most small arms (I've used it in some of my homegrown RPG combat systems), though it will break down with larger weapons.

 

[Klaus]

I have two problems with this (three, if you include the observation that this seems clearly to be a post-hoc rationalization intended to excuse sloppiness).

You keep using this phrase as if it somehow makes your arguments superior; apart from the fact you have absolutely no idea what my thinking is unless I specify (and, you're wrong, anyway), please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth as I could very easily do the same in my counter arguments and then this discussion rapidly turns into pointless hot air.

First, this is a significant departure from established Traveller canon.

No it isn't. That's just patently untrue. Discarding Sabot does 3D, Hi-Ex does 4D. DS has a slightly higher chance of hitting armour over an AR round; HE doesn't. Since special ammo types are not discussed at all in MGT, obviously (IMO) to be left to Mercenary, it makes perfect sense to default to 'ball', like all the other weapons (and before someone harps on about shotguns, they have always been a special case in rpgs, since the year dot).

You might want to show some actual evidence that this is sloppy game design, rather than just lay about with accusations. Maybe it is from your PoV. From many other PoVs it isn't. This isn't 'post-hoc rationalisation'; it is simply an opinion.

From someone who has a problem with the simple mathematical operation required to produce Effect, you seem quite happy to introduce exactly the same operation to 'model' armour piercing.

You may think damage and penetration are different things; in RL, they are. In a game? It's rapidly becoming apparent that the complicated fixes are not worth the effort. Dmg and pen are only different (in game terms) when considering totally unarmoured opponents; it's a minor distinction I for one can't be bothered bothering about, not when there's a game to play. Maybe MGT are of exactly the same mind...

 

[tbeard1999]

You keep using this phrase as if it somehow makes your arguments superior; apart from the fact you have absolutely no idea what my thinking is unless I specify (and, you're wrong, anyway), please do me the courtesy of not putting words in my mouth as I could very easily do the same in my counter arguments and then this discussion rapidly turns into pointless hot air.

<shrug> I call them as I see them. And for the reasons I listed, I think that the explanation is far more likely to be "sloppiness" rather than "intentional deviation from canon".

No it isn't. That's just patently untrue. Discarding Sabot does 3D, Hi-Ex does 4D. DS has a slightly higher chance of hitting armour over an AR round; HE doesn't.

In CT, an ACR firing DS is -1 vs battledress vs -4 for an assault rifle. The ACR also gets better range modifiers (+1 to +3 depending on range). That's a huge difference in effectiveness for a 2d6 based system.

In AHL/Striker, the difference is a pen of 6 (vs. 3 for the assault rifle) and an effective range of 50% more than the assault rifle. Again, huge differences in a 2d6 system.

Since special ammo types are not discussed at all in MGT, obviously (IMO) to be left to Mercenary, it makes perfect sense to default to 'ball', like all the other weapons (and before someone harps on about shotguns, they have always been a special case in rpgs, since the year dot).

Well, at the very minimum, you've provided them with a reasonable sounding excuse...

From someone who has a problem with the simple mathematical operation required to produce Effect, you seem quite happy to introduce exactly the same operation to 'model' armour piercing.

Oh, I'm not completely happy with it. Given my druthers, I'd use a different system.

But your statement is inaccurate; the two mechanics are not similar. The current Effect mechanic requires players to remember the result of a mathmatical calculation on a previous roll, then apply that result to a new roll. My proposed AP ammo rule -- which I bet Mercenary will adopt, BTW (hope I get credit for it ) -- merely requires players to halve the armor rating of the target.

In any case, I warn you (again) about overinvesting yourself in dubious mechanics. Mongoose has already demonstrated, to their credit, that they are willing to change such mechanics.

 

[captainjack]

<shrug> I call them as I see them. And for the reasons I listed, I think that the explanation is far more likely to be "sloppiness" rather than "intentional deviation from canon".

Well, okay. that's a roundabout but valid way of saying "it's my opinion". Can we leave value out of it from here out ?

In any case, I warn you (again) about overinvesting yourself in dubious mechanics. Mongoose has already demonstrated, to their credit, that they are willing to change such mechanics.

Hi Ty.

I'm not trying to provide fodder for argument, or Ty or MGT bashing, and I certainly don't want Aramis to lock this thread, also. However, on the topic of "dubious mechanics" there was one substantive question we never really got to partly becuase I wasn't as diplomatic as I ought to have been. So that said, -if I can ask this without provoking a fight, and starting from the statement that I accept that the T/E distribution was skewed, I'd be very interested in your thoughts about why a skewed result is a bad thing per se. Consider it a trade question, perhaps.....I'm a statistician and a long term gamer (and designer) and I'm really wondering why this is the case.

 

[tbeard1999]

I'd be very interested in your thoughts about why a skewed result is a bad thing per se. Consider it a trade question, perhaps.....I'm a statistician and a long term gamer (and designer) and I'm really wondering why this is the case.

OK, I'll try to answer the question and *not* create another locked thread. At the start, what follows are my honest opinions and recollections. They may well be arguable, but I'm not interested in re-hashing that debate. Of course, I'll correct any relevant, important factual errors.

To start with, I don't think that I ever expressed a categorical objection to skewed results. As a rule, I think a tool is a tool and a tool cannot be inherently good or bad. Only the use to which it is put can be good or bad IMHO.

I objected to the T/E mechanic because I did not think that it yielded good results. I also objected to the mechanic for a number of reasons besides its statistical qualities. I felt it was fiddly and yielded no information that a more straightforward system couldn't yield -- for example, the current Effect mechanic, which I actually suggested (though I'm sure I wasn't the only one).

You can go back through my old posts for details, but my bottom line complaint is that the system yielded bizarre outcomes and/or skewed to the extremes. For instance, in one version, a failure (roll 7-) would be the worse kind of failure possible more than half the time. A successful roll in another version with (say) a -3 modifier would yield a superb success most of the time that the roll succeeded. And so on.

It was clear to me that the designer did not correct assess the probabilities of that system. This is a personal peeve of mine, so I was rather harsh in my criticism on this point. If I had it to do all over again, I'd tone a lot of that down.

Anyhow, given the mechanic's initial structure, I think that he assumed that the normal d6 probability spread would apply (i.e., an equal chance of rolling each number from 1 to 6). What he failed to take into account is the fact that the "success cut-off" also had the effect of dramatically changing the distribution on each die. For successful rolls, the effect was to make "6"'s far more likely than "1s". In fact, an unmodified successful roll of 8+ can NEVER have any ones. For failures, the reverse was true. The result was a system that generally magnified the extremes, and I did not care for such a mechanic. Even if I wanted a system that would magnify extremes, I could have found an easier, less fiddly way to achieve it.

The fact that the designer shoehorned it into the combat system made it worse for me personally. Weapon damage became highly predictable (and rather high). When combined with the original initiative system, the result was something I simply could not stand. (I run combat-intensive paramilitary type campaigns, so flaws in the combat system strike me hard; this is why I am so hard on MGT's combat system). I can ignore bad mechanics if I don't have to use them. By shoehorning the T/E system into combat, the designer forced me to use it.

And the numerous valiant attempts to fix this mechanic seemed to invariably break the system in other ways. Like a man with a shower curtain that's too short, every attempt to close a hole opened another one. I am not interested in a debate on this point; all I want to note is that I reviewed EVERY variant that I saw posted and I believe that ALL of them had serious problems; some more than others, but ALL were, IMHO, seriously flawed. This did not surprise me; I tried to fix the mechanic myself until I realized that the system simply could not be fixed.

And at the end of the day, I just couldn't see that such an obviously defective mechanic was worth the considerable effort that fans were expending to save it. (I also got frustrated by the fact that many of the folks who claimed the mechanic was fabulous had themselves come up with fixes...that invariably introduced other problems, or failed to fix the orginal problem complained of.)

In hindsight, maybe I should have forseen that the mechanic was in trouble. The designer offered virtually no defense of it and let fans of the system carry the ball. But I didn't, and as the debate got more contentious, *I* got more contentious.

So, in a nutshell, that is what I recall of the Great T/E Debate. I have slept since then, so I may have misremembered some things. I honestly have no desire to re-hash the debate. However, you asked me to explain my objections and I wanted to clarify that my objection was not a categorical one. If I did not answer your question, I'll try hard to do so. But I do not want to re-hash the debate. <crosses fingers>

 

[Klaus]

In CT, an ACR firing DS is -1 vs battledress vs -4 for an assault rifle. The ACR also gets better range modifiers (+1 to +3 depending on range). That's a huge difference in effectiveness for a 2d6 based system.

Well that kinda devalues battle dress really, given that it's 2 TLs higher than an ACR. I never liked CT method of having 2 separate look up tables anyway. It's clunky and confusing, especially when on they're both on different pages, and as Snapshot shows, there's far too many auto-hits and auto-misses. Wouldn't like to be up against an SMG with no armour at normal combat ranges - you have zero chance of not being hit.

In AHL/Striker, the difference is a pen of 6 (vs. 3 for the assault rifle) and an effective range of 50% more than the assault rifle. Again, huge differences in a 2d6 system.

Neither of which are rpgs. And Striker is way too over-complicated, and has its own problems.

Well, at the very minimum, you've provided them with a reasonable sounding excuse...

If it's a reasonable rationale how is it an excuse? I admit commentary is somewhat thin in MGT - be nice to here Mongoose's own rationales for their rules. BTW, they abandoned T/E not because of the statistical anomalies you pointed out, but because they didn't like the way players fixated on the marker die in combat, rather than the story. But that's probably just post-hoc rationalisation, eh?

My proposed AP ammo rule -- which I bet Mercenary will adopt, BTW (hope I get credit for it ) -- merely requires players to halve the armor rating of the target.

Well get in the queue, sir. You are not the only one to suggest this, nor the first. And it is implicit in the way they treat shotgun pellets already, so I'd say it was a safe bet.

In any case, I warn you (again) about overinvesting yourself in dubious mechanics. Mongoose has already demonstrated, to their credit, that they are willing to change such mechanics.

Yup they changed from the playtest - this is published. Mercenary will probably add several new options and variants, as it should. and yes, a couple of years down the line, they may amend the rules, like they've done with Conan. This is only good practice. Assess the rules over lots of play, player feedback, and such, and make them better, respond to any issues that develop. I at first had a few little reservations about combat, but as time goes on and I look at it more, and test it out, the more I'm liking it as it stands. I'll wait and see what Mercenary brings before I pass final judgment on it. But so far I see it as streamlined and simple, and that's all good.

 

[tbeard1999]

Well, okay. that's a roundabout but valid way of saying "it's my opinion". Can we leave value out of it from here out ?

We can, but there's a useful component to my assertion that the explanation is probably "sloppiness". If I am right, then the weapon stats will probably get fixed in eratta, later printings, supplements, etc. To its credit, Mongoose has been willing to admit and correct mistakes (starship deckplans, elimination of playtest systems that many folks were invested in).

This means that someone who aggressively defends this point now may well get "thrown under the bus" later. So those who want to leap to Mongoose's defense at every criticism might want to be more circumspect...

 

[tbeard1999]

Well that kinda devalues battle dress really, given that it's 2 TLs higher than an ACR. I never liked CT method of having 2 separate look up tables anyway. It's clunky and confusing, especially when on they're both on different pages, and as Snapshot shows, there's far too many auto-hits and auto-misses. Wouldn't like to be up against an SMG with no armour at normal combat ranges - you have zero chance of not being hit.

You may not realize it, but you've switched your argument. First you argue that there's little difference between CT and MGT's depiction of ACRs. When confronted with serious evidence to the contrary, you shift the argument to "well, I approve of the changes MGT made in its depiction of ACRs."

If it's a reasonable rationale how is it an excuse? I admit commentary is somewhat thin in MGT - be nice to here Mongoose's own rationales for their rules.

Some unsolicited advice -- don't leap to their defense at every chance. There's a good chance IMHO that the things I'm complaining about *are* mistakes or due to poor editing/sloppiness, etc. Give the designer a chance to reply or correct the mistake before investing yourself in it.

BTW, they abandoned T/E not because of the statistical anomalies you pointed out, but because they didn't like the way players fixated on the marker die in combat, rather than the story. But that's probably just post-hoc rationalisation, eh?

As previously noted, I was assured by many folks that I was virtually the only person who didn't like the T/E system. Now, after Mongoose ditched it, I am assured that many other people had many other problems with it. I'm content that the mechanic was ditched; I don't particularly care whose complaint Mongoose found most dispositive.

Well get in the queue, sir. You are not the only one to suggest this, nor the first. And it is implicit in the way they treat shotgun pellets already, so I'd say it was a safe bet.

I do wish you'd make up your mind.

Yup they changed from the playtest - this is published. Mercenary will probably add several new options and variants, as it should. and yes, a couple of years down the line, they may amend the rules, like they've done with Conan. This is only good practice. Assess the rules over lots of play, player feedback, and such, and make them better, respond to any issues that develop. I at first had a few little reservations about combat, but as time goes on and I look at it more, and test it out, the more I'm liking it as it stands. I'll wait and see what Mercenary brings before I pass final judgment on it. But so far I see it as streamlined and simple, and that's all good.

Then we disagree. I see a game that has some strong points, but that has a combat system that appears to have been rushed and inadequately playtested. While it's certainly possible that a better combat system will ultimately emerge, I think it's a shame that such a system couldn't have been included in the original printing. <sigh>

However -- and this is an important point -- I think that the MGT combat system is adequate, if not exceptional. It isn't to my taste, but I have a replacement combat system that is to my taste and that can be easily ported to MGT. The same could not have been said of the playtest combat system.

So I guess what I mean is that while the MGT combat system is not what I would have designed, it's probably not so bad that the game will fail because of it. And that is a Good Thing.

 

[Jamus]

I have two problems with this (three, if you include the observation that this seems clearly to be a post-hoc rationalization intended to excuse sloppiness).

Do you honestly have to run down MGT constantly in the MGT section of the boards? It is possible that not having additional ammo types in the basic book was the plan. Why assume the worst?

First, this is a significant departure from established Traveller canon. *If* the designer actually believed that the ACR needed to be far less effective than in previous versions of Traveller, then I think he should have explained this in the rules.

Canon between editions does not fly. If you want to argue canon between edition we can rehash the battledress debate since CT/MT and now MGT do not allow for integrated grav while T4 does. which is Canon? Things change from edition to edition. Personally I dont see the canon break. ACRs in CT are noted as firing standard ammo often. BK4 pg36

Personally, I think that this is a careless mistake, rather than any intentional design decision. I recall during playtesting that the designer seemed unaware that assault rifles actually use less powerful cartridges than rifles.

We could debate the difference in lethality between a 5.56mm and a 7.62mm both seem to kill equally well.

MGT pg99 Assault Rifle Assault rifles fire lighter projectiles than rifles, but are capable of a higher rate of fire and are more suitable to short-range encounters.

Someone knew there was a difference.

ACR The ultimate evolution of the conventional firearm, advanced combat rifles are the weapon of choice for many military units. Standard equipment includes an electronic battlefield sight, incorporating both light amplification and IR abilities (snip), visual magnification up to 5x zoom, and a laser range finder which may also be used as a target painting device. The weapon is also Gyroscopically stabilized during firing.

So "careless mistake" seems far more plausible to me than "intentional deviation from established canon".

Now you are just being insulting to the MGT writers.

In any case, these rationales seem like little more than an attempt to excuse sloppiness on the part of the MGT design team. I personally expect that they will correct the error in Mercenary, so I wouldn't be too eager to defend the current ratings, if I were you.

I wouldn't be so fast to attack the ratings.

EDIT: Of course, giving the ACR a significantly greater armor penetrating capability will expose the primary weakness of equating penetration and damage -- the high penetration weapon will be unreasonably lethal against lightly armored targets. So some rules work will need to be done. At the very minimum, I think that MGT should include an "armor piercing" damage class. Such rounds would halve the target's armor protection.

The improved damage of the ACR would be a product of the ammo used not the rifle itself. The ACR firing the same ball ammo as an assault rifle is going to have similar firing qualities. Reading the descriptions again it seems the real difference between the two (ACR and Assault rifle) is the electronics on the ACR which the Assault rifle does not have.

The ACR could be classified as an AP weapon and its damage could remain the same as the assault rifle.

The weapon is not armor piercing. the ammo maybe but ammo can be designed for any purpose to be used in almost any weapon. Why should the ACR be the only weapon that can use AP or HE rounds? If you can design and produce a AP round for a 4.5mm rifle why couldn't you design AP rounds for a 5.56mm or 7.62mm? I believe the damage codes in CT (bk1) and MGT reflect a standard weapon firing standard ammo. Note the improved damage of the gauss rifle and gauss pistol to other weapons in the same category.

 

[captainjack]

So, in a nutshell, that is what I recall of the Great T/E Debate. I have slept since then, so I may have misremembered some things. I honestly have no desire to re-hash the debate. However, you asked me to explain my objections and I wanted to clarify that my objection was not a categorical one. If I did not answer your question, I'll try hard to do so. But I do not want to re-hash the debate. <crosses fingers>

Nah, no rehashing, not from me anyway. Thanks for taking he time to answer - and making a nod to the problems in the process of the discussion. Most of the threads are gone, or way far back, and I was interested in getting a review of your position. The view of it magnifying extremes is interesting - it may be another one of those unspoken love it/hate it subtle differences in how people like their games. I'll think about it a bit and see If I have any more questions...if I have any kind of comments other than "thats interesting" , I'll PM them, perhaps...or keep em to myself......

Again, thanks,

 

[tbeard1999]

Do you honestly have to run down MGT constantly in the MGT section of the boards? It is possible that not having additional ammo types in the basic book was the plan. Why assume the worst?

Why assume the best? EDIT: Left out

As I said before, I call them as I see them. Until this forum is relabeled "The MGT Adoration Forum", I'll continue to give my honest opinion about MGT.

And since there's no evidence (such as designer statements to that effect) that the designer *intended* to make ACRs little better than assault rifles, I see no reason to impute intent here.

Canon between editions does not fly. If you want to argue canon between edition we can rehash the battledress debate since CT/MT and now MGT do not allow for integrated grav while T4 does. which is Canon? Things change from edition to edition. Personally I dont see the canon break. ACRs in CT are noted as firing standard ammo often. BK4 pg36

Canon, IMHO, is CT. But I'm unclear here. Are you now acknowledging that MGT *does* significantly alter the canon ACR?

MGT pg99 Assault Rifle Assault rifles fire lighter projectiles than rifles, but are capable of a higher rate of fire and are more suitable to short-range encounters.

Someone knew there was a difference.

Only after being worn out in the Mongoose thread during the playtest. The first version of the assault rifle did more damage than rifles...

ACR The ultimate evolution of the conventional firearm, advanced combat rifles are the weapon of choice for many military units. Standard equipment includes an electronic battlefield sight, incorporating both light amplification and IR abilities (snip), visual magnification up to 5x zoom, and a laser range finder which may also be used as a target painting device. The weapon is also Gyroscopically stabilized during firing.

Now you are just being insulting to the MGT writers.

Well, despite the colorful text, the MGT version of the ACR is little better than an assault rifle. When a game designer deploys florid prose, but them makes the weapon essentially identical to an earlier design, I consider that insulting to me.

I wouldn't be so fast to attack the ratings.

I'm getting that. In fact, I'm kinda curious as to whether there's anything about MGT you'd criticize...

<snip of more standard ammo rationale>

As noted before, I find this rationale unconvincing.

 

[MongooseMatt]

Canon, IMHO, is CT.

Canon is whatever Marc decides it is. . .

 

[Jamus]

Why assume the best?

Bad habit of mine i suppose. I am a optimist.

As I said before, I call them as I see them. Until this forum is relabeled "The MGT Adoration Forum", I'll continue to give my honest opinion about MGT.

Your honest opinion indeed. What concerns me is the motivation behind your honest opinion.

And since there's no evidence (such as designer statements to that effect) that the designer *intended* to make ACRs little better than assault rifles, I see no reason to impute intent here.

ACRs are better than assault rifles in MGT. read the descriptions. ACR have better range, better targeting, better recoil compensation, can be used to paint targets with a laser or used to judge distance with the laser for accurate Ortillery/artillery fire control. Pretty much all that changed between BK4 and MGT is ammo used by the ACR. It now uses standard slug ammo. I am sure additional ammo types will be released in Mercenary.

Canon, IMHO, is CT. But I'm unclear here. Are you now acknowledging that MGT *does* significantly alter the canon ACR?

Not at all. the ACR of MGT is almost identical to the CT version less the Ammo.

Only after being worn out in the Mongoose thread during the playtest. The first version of the assault rifle did more damage than rifles...

Which is fine but why should one do more damage than the other?

Well, despite the colorful text, the MGT version of the ACR is little better than an assault rifle. When a game designer deploys florid prose, but them makes the weapon essentially identical to an earlier design, I consider that insulting to me.

The two weapons are not identical for reasons explained above. It is obvious that the ACR is the better weapon and would be more useful in various combat situations while the assault rifle is only really good at spitting out rounds and nothing more. see how identical they are if you are fighting in the dark trying to call in an artillery strike, or trying to snipe someone. The ACR is superior in every way including damage potential as one could argue the odds of getting effect damage are better with the ACR in a few situations. (better recoil/ better to hit bonus)

I'm getting that. In fact, I'm kinda curious as to whether there's anything about MGT you'd criticize...

I guess the difference is this. As a long time fan of CT RAW I see MGT as the natural progression of that system and am happy to have a version of traveller on the store shelves again.

As noted before, I find this rationale unconvincing.

That ammo has more to do with armor penetration/damage than the weapon firing it? To state otherwise is just plain misinformed.

 

[Jamus]

Canon is whatever Marc decides it is. . .

And since MM did T4 should we not assume T4 tech as canon? I mention this because I really like the emperors arsenal book. I like the idea of grav assisted battledress jumping about laying waste like starship troopers.

 

[tbeard1999]

Ok, I've bitched about MGTs problems with damage and penetration for awhile, so it's time for me to describe how I would fix the problems that I claim exist. The suggestions below are not necessarily what I'd prefer (in a perfect world), but rather, the least-intrusive means that I think will largely mitigate the problem.

1. Introduce a mechanic to distinguish armor piercing rounds, such as the ACR's discarding sabot round or the snub pistol's HEAP round. The easiest retrofit is to define an "AP" class. AP rounds halve the target's armor (rounded down). In general, an AP weapon's damage will be roughly the same as its non-AP counterpart. So the ACR will do about the same damage as an assault rifle.

2. Give the ACR a 40-50 round magazine. Assume that advances in propellant technology have allowed for much smaller cartridges. This, combined with the AP rule above, would make ACRs clearly superior to TL7 assault rifles.

3. I do not care for the current initiative system, but it's probably fine for an RPG. If you want a sequence of play that will better model infantry tactics, adopt the sequence of play from my combat system at http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=10755 :

1. Initiative Roll. 2d6 per side. Add tactics skill of each side's *leader*. (If the character does not generally act as leader, the referee may deny the bonus).

2. Declare Cover, if necessary (initiative loser goes first).

3. Suppressive Fire. Side with initiative goes first, and results are applied immediately.

4. Movement & Snapshots. Side with initiative chooses which side goes first. Nonmoving side may make snapshots

5. Normal Fire. Initiative loser declares attacks first, but all results are applied simultaneously at the end of the phase. Figures who made snapshots, sprinted, or made suppression attacks cannot fire.

Use my rules for suppression fire:

A figure may use suppressive fire instead of normal aimed fire. Suppressive fire occurs before all other fire and movement in the combat phase and is primarily intended to cause the target to duck for cover. A figure making a suppressive fire attack may not move during the rest of the turn. Automatic weapons making suppressive attacks must fire at least half a clip (or ammo belt). Semiautomatic weapons must fire a 5 shot burst. Suppressive fire is +2 to hit.

A figure making a suppressive fire attack rolls to hit normally. If he hits the target, the target takes a -2 to hit penalty on his next shot during this turn. Additional suppression hits add -1 to the to hit penalty. If a firing figure scores multiple hits, he can apply them to other targets per the normal rules.

A suppressed figure immediately may go prone if he wishes. Green troops will automatically go prone if suppressed.

Suppressive fire will score an actual hit on a target only on a to hit roll of natural 12 (and even then, only 1 hit will be scored).

Note that the suppressive fire rules must be used with the sequence of play for the rule to be actually worth using. Using that sequence of play, infantry tactics like bounding overwatch become feasible.

4. I'd also create a "low pen" damage class. Armor protects double against these weapons. Shotguns, grenades, and non-HEAP firing pistols should generally be low pen weapons. HE weapons would also be low-pen weapons IMHO.

5. For autofire, I'd use Option 4 in my post in this thread: http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=15976

 

[tbeard1999]

Your honest opinion indeed. What concerns me is the motivation behind your honest opinion.

The same could be asked of you, complete with insinuation.

However, there are no dark and sinister motives here. I simply dislike certain aspects of MGT and feel that there are better alternatives.

ACRs are better than assault rifles in MGT. read the descriptions.

The problem is that the florid descriptions are not reflected in the actual rules very much.

Only after being worn out in the Mongoose thread during the playtest. The first version of the assault rifle did more damage than rifles...

Which is fine but why should one do more damage than the other?

"Rifle" bullets -- say, the 7.62mm x 51 NATO round (aka .308 Winchester), the .30-06 (7.62mm x 63) round, or the Russian 7.62mm x 54) -- have significantly more energy than "Assault Rifle" bullets -- 5.56mm x 45 NATO; 7.62 x 39 Russian. And Traveller descriptions of those weapons have indicated that they fire bullets in these classes. Thus a "Rifle" should do more damage than an "Assault Rifle".

"Rifle" rounds are also much better against body armor than "assault rifle" rounds and have superior stopping power at long range. The US Army, for instance, is seriously considering replacing the 5.56mm x 45 round with a 6.8 mm Remington cartridge. Personally, I like the 7.62mm NATO round, but I assume the professionals know best...

I guess the difference is this. As a long time fan of CT RAW I see MGT as the natural progression of that system and am happy to have a version of traveller on the store shelves again.

Oh I am too. I have to admit that I got quite a tingle when I saw that classic black cover with the red Traveller logo (though the font was changed and the Nike-style swash added nothing). I've said this before, but I guess it bears repeating. I do not think that my complaints are serious enough to render the game unplayable. I think that they should have been fixed before printing, but if a little roughness is the price of ditching the playtest T/E system and initiative system, then it's a price well worth paying IMHO.

That ammo has more to do with armor penetration/damage than the weapon firing it? To state otherwise is just plain misinformed.

Good thing I never said this, then.

 

[aramis]

Why assume the best? Because you've been repeatedly asked not to make negative assumptions in the MoTrav Forums.

 

[Klaus]

I do wish you'd make up your mind.

Oh, my mind was made up 2 weeks ago. I'm open to several ways of house-ruling according to taste. Halving armour for AP just seemed the simplest, in the end. There's always more than one way to skin a cat.

That's what a collegiate discussion is like; folk talk about stuff, offer opinions, change their minds, reach consensus, disagree, compromise. Perhaps you should try it sometime, rather than taking every contrarian position available.

 

[tbeard1999]

Oh, my mind was made up 2 weeks ago. I'm open to several ways of house-ruling according to taste. Halving armour for AP just seemed the simplest, in the end. There's always more than one way to skin a cat.

That's what a collegiate discussion is like; folk talk about stuff, offer opinions, change their minds, reach consensus, disagree, compromise. Perhaps you should try it sometime, rather than taking every contrarian position available.

<chuckle>

Oh, there are a great many more contrarian positions I could take, if I actually cared about taking contrarian positions. You'll note that I *have* complimented MGT from time to time.

 

[MongooseMatt]

And since MM did T4 should we not assume T4 tech as canon?

I'll add a clarification.

Canon is what Marc decides it is at any particular time

Seriously, his sandbox, his rules.