Damage

[JFGarber]

I'm not certain if my question is errata or simple confusion.

Book 1 page 204 states in part "Weapons have various selector settings (not to be confused with Attack Mode)." I understand this to mean that the two are completely independent.

The text continues onto page 205 "Typical settings are Single Shot, Burst, and Full Auto. Each has its own pros (and cons). "

What are the cons of full auto? The game doesn't track ammunition, so running dry while Clint Eastwood might still have one in the chamber isn't a possibility. Is there a difficultly penalty somewhere in the text that I've overlooked?

Without some sort of penalty, everything (that has the capacity) will always be set to full auto. Triple damage. Wow.

And do we then assume that machine guns and VRF anythings will get triple damage past the #D results from GunMaker? Wouldn't such damage be baked into the creation of a machine gun?

 

[Wol]

I think Table 08 Book 3 p. 110 identifies which can fire with which selector setting, and P3 does require a mishap check, but otherwise that is what the rules allow. Penalties are for apparent target size for based on Attack Mode. (Book 1 p. 206) not selector setting.
The example Book 1 p. 226 note 2 shows the independence (YMMV) - Snap fire but x1 damage.:

2 Ay is SN 13. R=4. Don is Size 5. S-R=+1. SnapFire +1D.
Damage Select= Single (which is all that Ay’s Rifle is capable of;
perhaps if the thugs win, they will loot the Friends’ bodies). Ay must
shoot 14 or less on 5D. He rolls 23, 15, and 17, and misses each.

You *might* not be able to reload and move > speed 1 (Book 1 p. 205).

 

[JFGarber]

I also don't understand why the BBB discusses reloading. Ammo is not tracked. If ammo is not counted, there is no need to reload.

I have no personal experience firing fully automatic weapons. Is full auto more difficult to control? How about burst?

 

[Wol]

You still have to reload but it is automatic in many circumstances.

You cannot reload if sprinting - for example.

Given the expected short duration of firefights and the usually lethal consequences, Ammo may not be a problem. If it does bog down then you could introduce progressively harder task checks to have more ammo to hand.

regards

 

[whulorigan]

I also don't understand why the BBB discusses reloading. Ammo is not tracked. If ammo is not counted, there is no need to reload.

I have no personal experience firing fully automatic weapons. Is full auto more difficult to control? How about burst?

You still have to reload but it is automatic in many circumstances.

You cannot reload if sprinting - for example.

Given the expected short duration of firefights and the usually lethal consequences, Ammo may not be a problem. If it does bog down then you could introduce progressively harder task checks to have more ammo to hand.

regards

I believe the idea was not to bog down both players and GMs with the details of bookkeeping regarding tracking ammo in the midst of a firefight.

Since the actual amount of ammo spent on any given attack is somewhat abstract in this system, how about this as a simple house rule for burst or autofire:

• Burst: At the end of each round roll a basic "task" throw (Target# =7, Difficulty Dice= Round#). Failure of the throw means the magazine is empty.
• Autofire: As above, but add an additional 1D to the throw.
  
• +/-Mods (or +/- 1D) to be applied as the GM deems appropriate (such as for relative magazine capacity, for example).

 

[DCS]

You could also do something similar to what Striker did for small arms in the advanced rules and change the reload rules slightly, so weapons on burst or full auto needed to reload more often, say:

3 rounds on single, 2 rounds on burst, and every round on full auto. That would impose the movement restriction for reload more often. However, you then have the complexity of the results of switching between modes, round to round, to resolve.

 

[Diveguy]

I also don't understand why the BBB discusses reloading. Ammo is not tracked. If ammo is not counted, there is no need to reload.

I have no personal experience firing fully automatic weapons. Is full auto more difficult to control? How about burst?

Yes, full auto is *more* difficult to control - particularly in shoulder fired weapons, as opposed to "crew served/mounted" versions. Depending on a number of factors (size, caliber, recoil, weapon design, rate of fire, training, etc) this varies from "bothersome" to "Wow, that got away from me quick."

As a point of reference - take your "typical" current-era 5.56mm type military select-fire rifle, and a standing shooter with a man-sized target at 100 meters, firing a full magazine of 30 rounds on full-auto. If anything more than 5-10 rounds are on target it would be a big surprise.

This is the whole reason burst fire is used. To put more than one round rapidly on target (so as to increase terminal ballistic wound effects), while avoiding the issues of most of the rounds missing. Yes, well-trained forces using such fire at appropriate distances can accomplish a lot. But - more often in my experience, trained users in most "typical" combat engagements (which are usually under 100 m) will be using semi-automatic fire in order to better ensure hits and conserve ammo. And, quite honestly, you can still get a lot of rounds on target pretty quick using this technique.

I am NOT saying full-auto doesn't have a use. Crew served weapons, area suppression fire, and breaking contact from a more powerful force are all times where it comes into play VERY effectively. A few machine guns in defilade with overlapping arcs of fire, and a nice exposed kill zone will play havoc upon attacking infantry units. But, in the "real world" of effective combat engagements, particularly by individuals using small arms, full-auto is far more of a Hollywood tool than an effective technique.

As for ammo management - others have already suggested some house rule thoughts which are a good way to start. One way or another, if characters insist upon using full-auto indiscriminately, as a ref I would absolutely incur this comes at a cost. Whether you're addressing the logistics of rapid ammo shortages, increased chances of a malfunction from weapon overheating, or simply a lot of unintentionally dead and wounded non-combatants caught from all those stray rounds - I find they get the point sooner rather than later.

 

[Condottiere]

Special Forces have a bias towards semi.

I look at the game mechanics, and in one, burst was adjusted from three to double tap on my guns as being optimum for effect and recoil compensation.

 

[DCS]

If you felt things were unfair, you could always apply an additional task modifier to full auto.

Given the deadly and abstract nature of things at the current level, I might wait to see how things played out. In a universe of meson ortillery, things can get unfair

 

[Timerover51]

I also don't understand why the BBB discusses reloading. Ammo is not tracked. If ammo is not counted, there is no need to reload.

I go with it is the responsibility of the Game Master to keep track of ammo. If he is not worried about it, then you have the players with infinite ammunition. I keep track by the shot if firing semi-auto, if firing full auto, each burst is 10 rounds, so if a 30 round magazine, the player gets 3 shots and then reloads. If a Skill Level 1 shooter, I might simply burn the entire magazine in one burst. Skill Level 0, definitely burn the magazine in one burst.

I have no personal experience firing fully automatic weapons. Is full auto more difficult to control? How about burst?

I could not quite figure out the various rifles in T5.1, so I am assuming the combat rifle from earlier editions. That fires a 10 gram slug at about 900 meters per second. Ten grams in 154 grains in English units, and 900 meters a second is a tad over 2950 feet per second. That is a bit faster than the WW2 .30-06 round, but about the same bullet weight. To fully control that recoil, for someone who knew what he was doing took a rifle about the weight of a Browning Automatic Rifle at 19-20 pounds, or say 9 kilograms. The M-14 was originally supposed to be fully automatic, but was uncontrollable when fired that way. They tried to modify the rifle to be controllable, and ended up with a weapon about as heavy as the BAR. When fired at full auto, the first round would go toward the target, and then depending on the shooter, it might be shooting at whatever was flying downrange.

I did training in Alaska with the M-60 machine gun. If the firer was too light to handle the gun, it was not under control, and it weighed around 20 pounds. It took a certain amount of strength to handle the gun when fired from the bipod position, and more strength and skill if fired from the hip. Quite simply, I do not view the idea of the given rifle in Traveller as being capable of being fired at full auto with any control whatsoever. You can sort of control an M-16 when firing full auto, but please do not expect to hit anything more than 100 yards or 100 meters away. If firing from the hip, nothing more than 50 yards or 50 meters, but also assume that you are spraying an area and not aimed at a specific target.

Then there is the whole issue of the height of the person doing the firing but that is another can of worms.

 

[mike wightman]

You raise a good point - the Str of a character should be a factor in determining recoil mitigation.

 

[Timerover51]

You raise a good point - the Str of a character should be a factor in determining recoil mitigation.

Abd do not, repeat, DO NOT, put someone who is under 5 feet tall on a M60 when on a bipod. The same hold true for an M-16. For that matter, a small person cannot use a 1911 Colt automatic.

 

[Panzerkraken]

Abd do not, repeat, DO NOT, put someone who is under 5 feet tall on a M60 when on a bipod. The same hold true for an M-16. For that matter, a small person cannot use a 1911 Colt automatic.

On both those points, I'd say it's not about the STR but about the mass of the person. Although I disagree about the M16/M4, the recoil on those is minimal. I've seen people shoot them demonstratively with the stock pressed against their groin.

Height-wise it's not a big deal, shorter shooters just choke up on the handguard.

On the M1911, it's not small people, it's just people with small hands. No carnies.

 

[Condottiere]

Militaries eventually get around to ergonomicizing their weapon systems to their run of the mill grunts.

First time I became aware of that was with Singapore's Ultimax.

I would suppose the Luger and the parabellum nine millimetre would be another step in that direction.

 

[whartung]

I have no personal experience firing fully automatic weapons. Is full auto more difficult to control? How about burst?

The problem with full auto is management of recoil.

If you've ever fired a firearm with any notable recoil, when you pull the trigger, the muzzle tends to rise.

The shooter then need to readjust the firearm, and fire again to try and hit the same spot.

However, in an automatic firearm, the rate of fire tends to have the second (and other) shots go off while the weapon is recoiling. Meaning that there's little chance of the second shot hitting where the first shot hit -- the barrel has moved and not had time to recover.

There are different aspects of design and other factors that can be used to mitigate and control recoil induced offsets. The typical examples are simply a heavier firearm (harder to move) or simply reducing recoil (lower power cartridge or some active measure such as a muzzle break).

The M-14, the noted successor of the M-1 semi-automatic 30.06 rifle in WWII was full auto capable. But the design, weight, and the use of a full power .30 caliber cartridge made the rifle lousy for automatic fire. It was very difficult to control. Under full auto is was more a noise maker than an effective weapon.

Contrast it to the BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle). The BAR was, indeed, and by design automatic rifle. It fired a similar cartridge (the 30.06 is similar to the 7.62MM cartridge of the M-14, both are .30 caliber). It was also 1/2 again as heavy as the M-14, and also longer. It was a pig to carry around, but much more usable in its intended role. As a light ("Light") support weapon.

The M-60 was again, heavier still, but now were getting in to the realm of crew served weapons. Yea, Rambo and Arnie could shoot it with one hand, but that's the exception not the rule.

 

[kilemall]

The M-60 was again, heavier still, but now were getting in to the realm of crew served weapons. Yea, Rambo and Arnie could shoot it with one hand, but that's the exception not the rule.

On that last point, probably should make whatever the DMs are double up for low STR AND using a two handed weapon in one hand.


Interesting point though, Battle Dress or other powered armor can probably help a LOT with both and allow for accurate one-handed handling of longarms.


Course, BD should also allow the higher recoil of the PG/FGMPs, which I gather in T5 are more of a generic gunmaker description, plasma something TL.