tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I think we have found a rules difference between the LBBs and the Traveller Book. I couldn't find concealment in either edition of the LBBs.
Changing the way armor works in CT (again I guess)
- Thread starter Poppyseed45
- Start date
I think we have found a rules difference between the LBBs and the Traveller Book. I couldn't find concealment in either edition of the LBBs.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Just FYI, I was aware that the rule for cover and concealment wasn't in the LBBs (neither is the other things I list, like the Zero G rule).
Might be in Starter Traveller, though. I'll have to check.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I don't recall it being in Snapshot. There are cover rules in Azhanti High Lightning, with a -2 to hit for targets in cover.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
Snapshot has rules for zero-g but not cover and concealment (although it does offer a cover option, but that is covering fire rather than hiding).
It is in Starter edition.
It is in Starter edition.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I think that the Traveller Book's cover rule is poorly conceived.
It does make automatic hits harder but it also makes a lot of normal shots impossible. For instance, a Rifle firing at a Cloth-armored target at medium range needs a base 11+ to hit.
If the target is in cover, the roll becomes 15+(!). That means even a highly trained sniper (say Rifle-3 with a Dex bonus of +1) will seldom hit the target (needs an 11+, or only about 8% chance of hitting).
And this solution does little to solve the problem of automatic hits against unarmored targets. A SMG or autorifle at medium range gets a +8(!) against an unarmored target. Applying a -4 to hit modifier doesn't really alter the fact that a reasonably skilled shooter will hit almost all the time. (If he has skill level 1, his to hit chance is 100% against targets in the open, 92% against targets in cover).
So this solution is deeply unsatisfying to me.
And given the tremendous range of modifiers in the CT combat system, I don't think that there is a modifier that will address the fact that it is too easy to hit with some weapons without making many other weapons effectively useless.
IMHO the most effective solution, if you're gonna keep the CT system, is to reduce the size of all to hit modifiers. You could start by halving all positive and negative modifiers. I'd also look hard at eliminating positive modifiers for armor type.
It does make automatic hits harder but it also makes a lot of normal shots impossible. For instance, a Rifle firing at a Cloth-armored target at medium range needs a base 11+ to hit.
If the target is in cover, the roll becomes 15+(!). That means even a highly trained sniper (say Rifle-3 with a Dex bonus of +1) will seldom hit the target (needs an 11+, or only about 8% chance of hitting).
And this solution does little to solve the problem of automatic hits against unarmored targets. A SMG or autorifle at medium range gets a +8(!) against an unarmored target. Applying a -4 to hit modifier doesn't really alter the fact that a reasonably skilled shooter will hit almost all the time. (If he has skill level 1, his to hit chance is 100% against targets in the open, 92% against targets in cover).
So this solution is deeply unsatisfying to me.
And given the tremendous range of modifiers in the CT combat system, I don't think that there is a modifier that will address the fact that it is too easy to hit with some weapons without making many other weapons effectively useless.
IMHO the most effective solution, if you're gonna keep the CT system, is to reduce the size of all to hit modifiers. You could start by halving all positive and negative modifiers. I'd also look hard at eliminating positive modifiers for armor type.
Bob Weaver
SOC-12
I've often wondered at the idea behind the positive armor DMs. It does not seem logical that wearing Jack armor makes it easier for an NPC to hit me. That makes it a good idea to not wear armor if you think you'll be facing certain weapons. I just can't reconcile that with real life behavior.
Cheers,
Bob W.
Cheers,
Bob W.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Me neither. The CT system makes high penetration weapons unreasonably lethal against poorly armored targets and eliminates any drama when using such weapons (virtually automatic hits).
Of course, the system can work pretty well if you simply eliminate all positive to hit modifiers from the armor effects and range charts. I would give shotguns and autoweapons a +1 bonus on the range charts and I might give a +1 bonus to pistols at close range.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
For addition to your rule set, here are some sections contained in the Traveller Book (word for word)...
Zero Gravity: Virtually all weapons have recoil (except laser carbines and laser rifles) and in a zero-G environment this recoil can disorient or render helpless individuals not trained to compensate for it. When fighting in a zero-G environment, any individual has a chance of loosing control of his or her movement/position each combat round. Throw 10+ to avoid loosing control. DMs: -4 if firing a weapon. +5 if using a handhold. -6 if performing a swing or blow. +2 if DEX 9+. Additional +2 if DEX 11+. Using a handhold reduces DEX (for the above DMs and for required or advantageous dexterity) by -4.
Individuals who lose control may not fire until they have reoriented themselves and regained control. Roll 10+ in each subsequent combat round; DMs as above except handholds and weapons may not be used.
Reloading: Technically, guns reload themselves after each shot. However, when the magazine capacity of a gun is exhausted, then the shooter must reload the gun with a fully loaded magazine. Unless otherwise stated, the process of reloading a gun with a full magazine takes one combat round, during which time the shooter is treated as evading.
Revolvers do not use magazines, and so take two combat rounds (one combat round if not simultaneously evading) to reload. Laser carbines and laser rifles do not use cartridges; their power packs must be recharged upong being exhausted. Such a laser weapon may be returned to service by replacing the power pack. Recharging a spent power pack requires approximately an hour at a power source.
Empty magazines are, of course, resusable. Ammunition for such magazines can be purchased for approximately half the price of a full magazine. the tedium of reloading empty magazines requires that it be done at leisure, rather than combat. The process takes several minutes for each magazine.
Laser rifles and laser carbines require recharging of their power packs at a power source. When cone commercially, there is a cost of Cr200 to Cr300 for the service. Generally, such power packs can be recharged at a ship's power plant at no cost.
Armor: With the exception of reflec, no armor may be worn with another armor. If reflec is worn in conjunction with antoher armor type and the wearer is attacked, the better type of armor provides the DM.
Darkness and Night: Poor lighting conditions may restrict the ability of an individual to see and attack. Total darkness restricts engagements to close and short range. Attacks with guns at greater than short range are subject to DM -9. Partial darkness (moonlit night, distant illumination, or other weak light sources) reduces visibility range to medium, and attacks with guns are subject to DM -6.
Electronic Sights eliminate negative DMs due to darkness and poor lighting.
Cover and Concealment: Cover is any solid object between an attacker and defender capable of protecting the defender from a weapon attack. Concealment is any object that prevents viewing or sighting of the defender. Cover may also be concealment; concealment is not necessarily cover.
An individual under cover cannot be attacked; an individual in concealment cannot be attacked unless the attacker has some reason to shoot in the area.
Individuals who attack from cover become visible and may themselves be attacked; because they retain partial cover they are eligible for a defending DM of -4. Individuals who attack from concealment provide reason to believe they are present, and may be attacked; because they repain partially concealed, they are allowed a defending DM of -1.
We might have to agree to disagree on this one, TBeard. I think CT's combat system works fine, including Book 4.
Don't forget what I mention above when I say...
For example. Dukee, with DEX-7 and AutoPistol-1, fires his weapon and hits his target, doing 3D damage.
The first time the target is damaged, we use the first blood rule. Thus, all wound points are taken from a single stat. Our target has physicals of 777. Damage rolled is 3, 2, 1.
That's six points of damage, applied to STR randomly, making our target have physical stats of 177.
Next round, Dukee lands another hit. He roll damage: 5, 2, 3. Now, since the first blood rule has already been used, the defender applies damage as he sees fit just as long as he doesn't break up a die to do so. So, deftly taking the damage to the defender's benefit, the target ends up with stats of 122.
And, at the end of the second round, the defender fires at, hits, and incapacitates Dukee (first blood rule got him).
What really happened?
Was the defender actually shot twice?
See...when evaluating CT combat, I believe you tend to equate a successful to-hit roll to also mean that the target was shot. As I've shown in this example, that's not always the case. It can't be. Here, the target suffered two successful hits and a total of 6D damage, yet, the target was not incapacitated. In fact, with medical attention, the target is good as new in half an hour (fully healed).
Plus, all stats are considered at their full rating until after combat is complete. So, the only time the target in the above example would have his weight allowance adjusted for the wound would be the 30 minutes he spent with the doc. If the target had a DEX bonus for his weapon, and his DEX was reduced during combat, it wouldn't affect the character until after combat was over.
CT's combat system definitely has an abstract quality to it. It's really up to the GM to declare what happens during a combat round, and I think the best way to ref that is to look at the effects of combat, using that to guide the GM's decision.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Well, understand that I am expressing dissatisfaction with a rule that was added 5 years after CT first came out. The CT combat system overall works fine IMHO (with Book 1 weapons and characters). This rule does not, IMHO, improve the system and in fact introduces seriously questionable results.
And whatever the rationale, applying a -4 clearly makes it virtually impossible to wound armored targets with many weapons. And it does very little to mitigate the fact that many weapons will automatically wound unarmored targets.
No matter how you rationalize it, this is a poor outcome IMHO.
And the problem is endemic to the 2d6 distribution curve. A better statistical treatment would be to assign a cover saving throw (say 4+ on 1d6). A target that gets hit can save vs. each hit. This rule would have every shooter's to hit chance, no matter what his to hit chance it. A die roll modifier cannot do this.
EDIT -- I note that the rule is not quite like you seemed to describe it. Targets in cover only get the -4 if they do not fire. If a character fires, the modifier is only -1. That would avoid the problem I identified, as shots would become a little harder but not necessarily impossible. Of course, it does very little to to redress the fact that virtually automatic hits are common with many CT weapons and target matchups. And it also seriously weakens your original argument that everyone would be in cover and therefore much harder to hit. Anyone actually participating in the fight (i.e., firing at an opponent) would be -1 to hit, not -4 to hit.
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I know you feel that way about Book 4 weapons, but let's talk about that. Which weapons do you think are not represented well with the rule system?
I mean, most of the weapons in Book 4 are large, military grade weapons. The LAG is a big weapon. The LMG is a big weapon. As is the Auto-Cannon and the VRF Gauss Gun. The PGMP and FGMP, again, are very large weapons.
What does that leave? A couple of explosives (the RAM Grenade and the Hand Grenade); one small weapon (the snub pistiol); a rifle made for zero-G (the accelerator rifle).
Besides that, you've got two man-portable rifles: The Assault Rifle and the Gauss Rifle.
Remember, the Gauss Rifle is the epitome of slug-throw-tech. It's a rail gun the size of an M-16. It'll chew up anything in its path, including Battle Dress. It's a hell of a weapon (the Traveller equivalent of the +5 Holy Avenger in D&D).
Which of those weapons do you think are mis-represented in the rules?
Actually, you read it wrong.
If a character is behind cover, he cannot be attacked (no line-of-sight).
If a character attacks from behind cover, he is considered using partial cover, and thus would get the -4 DM when being attacked.
If a character is concealed, he cannot be attacked unless an attacker has a reason to fire into the area where the character is concealed. Concealment does not necessarily mean cover. For example, a man hiding in the bushes is concealed but he's not considered under cover.
Individuals who attack from concealment reveal their position, of course, but they still get a -1 DM for protection when being attacked.
Think of it like this...
Dude hides behind a wrecked tank with no body parts exposed, he's considered under cover and cannot be attacked.
Dude decides to fire at the enemy from behind the cover of the tank, he's exposing himself somewhat. So, the enemy then gets to attack him, but uses a -4 DM to hit him.
Next round the Dude runs across the battlefield to some bushes. Now, he's concealed. If the enemy saw him run into the bushes, they'd have a reason to fire at the bushes. He'd still get a -1 DM for defense when being in the bushes. But, if the enemy didn't see him get to the bushes, then they have no reason to attack him.
Now, when the Dude fires from the bushes, the enemy sees the attack coming from the bushes. Now, they have a reason to fire into the concealment. But, they'll use a -1 DM to hit.
Make sense now?
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
And, just curious, what does the time element have to do with it? Most people agree that the second edition of CT with the solid dice damage is better than the first edition, and the second edition obviously came out later than the first edition.
And, if Marc published a CT update next month that had some good rules in it for CT, I'd sure as heck use them and consider them CT rules--if indeed they were made for CT and good rules.
So, I'm wondering why the fact that cover and concealment rule in the Traveller Book (which, I understand, is supposed to be the definitive version of the rules) isn't valid.
Or, are you not saying that at all? Maybe I've misread you.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Actually, it isn't necessary to go to book 4 to find weapons that hit automatically. The humble autorifle, SMG and shotgun all get a cumulative +8(!) at medium range against an unarmored target.
That's a 100% chance of hitting and the -4 for cover barely reduces the chance of hitting.
Oh, and these weapons *also* get group hits and the SMG and autorifle get to shoot twice. With a single 4 shot burst, such a weapon has a 94.5% chance of scoring FOUR hits (assuming that the targets are available). 100% chance of hitting the target twice; 97.22% chance of hitting each adjacent target (maximum two targets).
Sorry, but no matter how you rationalize it, this is a dubious result.
And the fact that the target is in cover will have virtually no effect.
The Book 4 gauss rifle gets a +9 against an unarmored target at medium range, which isn't much better than the Book 1 SMG/Autorifle/Shotgun.
Book 4 weapons break the system in other ways; the assault rifle, for instance, gets a +6 against an unarmored target at medium range, but it's easy to pile a +2 to hit bonus on that with a DEX of 8+ and the Combat Rifleman skill makes it highly likely that an Army/Marine character will come out with another +2 (at least).
Now, if you don't mind automatic hits, then this shouldn't bother you. I object to this for reasons of drama and realism. I think it reduces the drama if a player knows he's always gonna hit (and I resent the system forcing me, as referee, to constantly contrive obstacles for the PCs just to cover a crappy mechanic.) It's also very dubious, based on my reading of real combat.
Yep I did. I got home and pulled my copy of the Traveller Book and discovered that concealment and cover are different things. I was quoting the concealment rule. But that does not change my essential contention -- the -4 penalty for cover (a) fails to correct the automatic hits problem and (b) renders non-automatic weapons worthless against armored targets in cover. If anything, this rule makes automatic weapons more overpowering by rendering semiautomatic weapons useless against armored targets.
Regarding my observation that this rule came 5 years later, my point is that only players with the Traveller Book and Starter Traveller would even have this rule. And I think that the rule's statistical qualities speak for themselves. I'd bitterly criticize this rule if it was in Mongoose Traveller; I'll not give it a pass just because it was written as part of CT.
Last edited:
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I think we're just on different sides of this issue.
Take the SMG you mention. We'll put it in the hands of a joe-normal character: Stats 777777 and Skill of SMG-1. He has an SMG and is wearing Cloth armor.
His opponent will be an exact duplicate of himself. The good guy, we'll call Greg. The bad guy, we'll call Bill.
Greg fires at Bill.
Code:
Range Roll Needed Roll Needed if Evade Roll Needed if Partial Cover
------ ------------ --------------------- ---------------------------
Close Imp Imp Imp
Short 7+ 8+ 11+
Medium 7+ 9+ 11+
Long Imp Imp Imp
Very Long Imp Imp ImpGiven the short range characteristics of an SMG, I think those are some pretty good numbers, even if the attacker gets to fire twice.
Now, let's remove the armor. We'll use the same characters, but they'll be wearing street clothes instead of cloth armor.
Code:
Range Roll Needed Roll Needed if Evade Roll Needed if Partial Cover
------ ------------ --------------------- ---------------------------
Close 6+ 6+ 10+
Short Auto Auto 3+
Medium Auto Auto 3+
Long 5+ 9+ 9+
Very Long 11+ Imp ImpHere, we have an unprotected target, and the SMG performs quite well in its peformance ranges of Short and Medium.
This is the part you argue against. And, I can understand why you make the point you do. On the surface, it looks as if the SMG will automatically hit at Short and Medium Range.
I think Marc & Co. new what they were doing. They had already set the combat system up so that PCs are unlikely to get killed (the large percentage chance that characters will be rendered unconscious and healed rather quickly rather than shot and put out of the game).
I think this is an intended design feature of CT and not a "flaw" as you see it.
I believe that they wanted automatic weapons to be feared (thus the auto hits and the double attacks), and they realized that they would have to overcome the design of rendering targets unconscious rather than shooting them or killing them.
A character isn't "shot" unless two of his stats go to zero. 6D damage makes that likely. 3D damage does not.
Thus, the rule system is the way it is.
Just because the hit probability is "Automatic" doesn't mean the character will be shot. Why? Because Damage determines that--not the To-Hit throw.
So, the GDW designers made it likely that auto weapons would deliver serious damage to their targets. Characters can protect themselves with armor, evasion, and/or cover. But, note that gunshot damage is likely but not automatic on an automatic hit.
I'll use my example I used earlier in the thread.
We'll have Bill move to Medium Range. Greg fires a burst from his SMG. He gets two attacks, each doing 3D damage.
As mentioned above, Bill has stats 777777. The To-Hit throws are automatic. 3D damage is thrown, rolling 3, 1, 2. The First Blood rule is used, and all this damage is taken off of STR. Bill becomes 1777777.
The second burst of 3D damage is thrown, and the result is 5, 3, 2. The defender can take this damage any way he sees fit, so Bill reduces his stats thusly: 122777.
So, what has happened here?
Has Bill been automatically hit with an SMG burst?
No. Bill can still act without penalty. His stats are even considered at their full level during the combat. There is no restriction put on a character for damage until one, two, or three of his stats are reduced to zero.
What's happened is that he's lost some hit points. These points, he will get back in 30 minutes provided he is not damaged further and that a medic is handy.
This is a hit point system. This is akin to D&D when a Battle axe, doing d8 damage, is slammed into an enemy fighter, reducing his 20 hit points to 15. The "hit" doesn't mean the Battle axe necessarily struck and drew blood from the target. It's the same thing with Traveller. A roll to "hit", even if it is an automatic hit, does not mean an actual bullet penetrated the target's skin. In both D&D and Traveller, damage determines when that happens (when the D&D character reaches 0 hit points, or when the Traveller character has two stats at zero).
My belief about the CT combat system is that Marc and the GDWites were not dummies. They new what they were doing with CT, and they had an eye on making it a game that player characters more than a real chance of surviving.
The automatic hits are not automatic gunshot wounds. Damage depends on the damage roll, and it takes two stats at zero for a serious wound.
Looking at CT that way--the way it was intended--shows that its really a pretty doggone good game system, even with the auto hits.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Sorry my friend -- your valiant and eloquent attempt to rationalize the CT combat system fails to move me (though I applaud the effort).
I don't think it's a bad system; but I don't think it's a particularly good one. Given that White Box D&D was state of the art when Traveller came out, there's no shame in that. But far better approaches to combat have evolved since then. I can't really see any reason to use it, other than nostalgia.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Well, it's just hit points. It's really no different than a trap doing 15 points of damage to a D&D character with 50 hit points.
It's good enough for me. I actually like the system. It's fun. It's fast. And, I like it better than any of the other upteen Traveller systems out there.
But, then again, I'm a CT-kinda guy. Having been elsewhere, and torn apart and modified CT to the upteenth degree, I find myself drawn back to CT in its pure form.
My opinion is that it does not need modification.
I'd be much, much happier if CT were the base system and all the other upteen Traveller franchises would produce new material for Traveller instead of re-inventing the wheel each go around.
Wouldn't it be nice if we just had one Traveller system but all the vendors selling all sorts of goodies-addons, supplements, adventures for our games (instead of yet another rule book, another Spinward Marches supplement to fit the new rule book, another set of ship construction rules to fit the new rules, etc)?
We should have never moved off of CT.
Just my opinion (and the majority of the Traveller players out there, as CT is the most popular Traveller version).
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
I'll go with that statement for awhile, but I do honestly think that CT could use a better combat system. GDW apparently agreed, as they developed AHL and Striker, which could be plugged into CT. And I note that one of the most common classes of house rules are replacement combat systems.
Unfortunately, the successor Traveller combat systems have generally failed to improve on CT because, while they may have fixed some of the mechanical clumsiness of the CT system, they were broken (or just clumsy) in other ways.
But that does not mean that the CT combat system can't be bettered. Personally, I've come to like the T4 system reworked for CT. Before that, my Striker derived combat system gave me and my players 2 decades of fun. And as I've stated in this forum, I think that you can fix the problems with the CT combat system by simply revising the modifiers (or just eliminating most positive ones).
Nor do I claim that the CT system won't work. As a matter of fact, it works pretty well compared to many RPG combat systems. Marc Miller was a wargame designer (and GDW was very good at wargame design), so I'd be shocked if the system was as execrable as, say the MGT playtest combat system.
But I just don't think that it's good enough...
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
I like the T4 combat system. It does some things really well.
What I don't like about it, though, is the same thing I don't like about the MT combat system. It homgenizes weapons. They're all the same. Same damage, same range, same modifiers. Two weapons in the same class are exactly the same, mechanically, in T4.
It makes it so there's no real reason to use one weapon over another. AKM or M16...it makes no difference.
CT does a brilliant job of keeping weapons of the same class in the same class...yet with different modifiers.
They both do the same damage, but one weapon may be one point better at Medium range. Or, the DEX bonus may be a bit different for one weapon over another (one weapon may have stronger recoil). Maybe one has a bit better punch vs. Cloth Armor than the other. There's a lot of little variables to tweak.
It makes having different specific weapons mean something.
I like how the AKM and the M16 can be two separate weapons in CT with slightly different stats--and yet, they are widely the same weapon.
In T4 (and MT), both of those weapons would have the exact same stats.
So, any gain I would get by using T4's combat system is negated by losing the differentation in weapons.
I think that price is too high.
Plus, I'm of the opinion (even though I'm a notorious tweaker), that a game shouldn't be tweaked unless absolutely necessary.
There's the law of unintended consequences to abide by. I see that law raise its ugly head with many CT tweaks.
CT is such an intricate system, too. It's hard to tweak one part without affecting another part--and sometimes that effect is not readily evident.
Which is another reason I chose to play CT in its pure form.
Supplement Four
SOC-14 5K
Two comments on this...
First, it would have to be agreed that CT is broken, as is your opinion. I wouldn't agree with that, and I bet I'm not alone in that opinion.
Two, if you eliminate the positive modifiers, what you end up with is a less dangerous game--a more forgiving game. You'll upset the balance. Auto weapons won't be as scary as they are now.
With many autoweapons, in the game currently, you will get damaged. The test is if you can withstand the damage. If you can, fine. If you can't, then you're incapacitated or worse. If you go up against an SMG at Short or Medium range, you will lose hit points--your hope is that you won't lose enough to damage the character (one or more stats at zero).
SMGs are scary that way. That's the fear. The character will lose hit points (but may not be hurt, as in D&D, when hit points are removed from a character). Then again, the damage could be severe, too. It depends on the damage roll.
Change the modifiers, and the PCs lean even more towards the "Un-hurt-able". SMGs won't be as scary.
You'll upset the balance of the game.
As you said, Marc was a wargame designer. I do believe he knew what he was doing with CT combat. I'm not saying it's the only way to do it. I like Striker and AHL OK, but, as I said above, the CT system, as-is, lends itself better to a role playing experience. There is differentation among the weapons. A player should pick the weapon (as in real life) that best fits the abilities of his character.
For example, a character may have STR-4 and Blade-1 and Dagger-0. Which weapon should he use?
In T4 and MT, it doesn't matter. But, in CT, it's a role playing choice for the character. The character would actually do better with the Dagger, as he is -2 to hit (for a net -1 DM with his skill) with the Blade.
So, the character is more skilled with the Blade but doesn't have the STR to weild the weapon properly. The dagger is lighter, and so the character has better command of the weapon even though his skill level is lower.
This is what I'm talking about...you don't get this type of thing with T4 or MT. (I don't think you get it with AHL or Striker either, do you? It's been a while since I've read those systems.).
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Agreed, although you must admit that you thought it was broken at one time. Perhaps I just haven't attained the same degree of Enlightenment yet
Well, any defanging of automatic hits will have the effect of making combat less dangerous (at least when those weapons are involved). But I contend that the game is currently unbalanced -- it makes autoweapons far more effective than drama or realism warrants. So I can't agree that addressing this will upset the balance. Rather, it would restore the balance IMHO.
I'm not sure that I agree with you on differentiation. Striker, for instance, has FAR more small arms than CT and usually has several different variations of each class (and the differences are material):
-Revolvers: Striker 4, CT 1
-Shotguns: Striker 2 classes of ammo; CT 1; Striker 2 shotguns, CT 1
-Rifles: Striker 2, CT 1
-Assault rifles: Striker 2, CT 1
-ACRs: Striker 2, CT 1
-Gauss Pistol: Striker 1, CT 0
-Laser Rifles and Carbines: Striker 4, CT 2
-Laser Pistol: Striker 2, CT 0
-Recoiless Rifles: Striker 6, CT 0
-Machineguns/VRF Gauss/Miniguns: Striker 8, CT 2
-Grenade Launchers/Rocket Launchers: Striker 15, CT 2
While there are theoretically 11 discrete game data points on CT weapons (5 range, 5 armor, damage), plus cost and weight, many of these are duplicative or unnecessary (Jack and Reflec are virtually the same as No Armor with firearms; many weapons canno fire at the longer ranges). Striker has nearly as many data points -- 3 range values, 3 penetration values, 3 autofire bonuses (if applicable). And as noted, it's mechanically easier to add a new weapon to Striker than to CT (especially if you use the Snapshot style grid like I did).
So Striker, to use a single example, has far more variety in small arms than CT/Book 4. And Striker's approach allows you to integrate heavy weapons seemlessly, a boast that CT cannot make.
Similar threads
