I own an AK. You have to understand how firearms work. The baseline can't be out near the moon.
Easy Fix to CT Combat System -- Double Tap
- Thread starter tbeard1999
- Start date
I own an AK. You have to understand how firearms work. The baseline can't be out near the moon.
If you know your weapon, leading a target doesn't seem hard to me. However, people don't seem to understand just how a baseline works.
First you model realistically, eg as I said, you hit everytime, the game does same same, it fits perfectly, then add your dms. Not reinvent the wheel without a baseline or any realism.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
That isn't the point I'm making and you know it.
Target shooting and shooting unarmed animals is a far cry from a combat firefight when lead is heading downrange towards you.
far-trader
SOC-14 10K
Nothing to do with baseline, whatever you mean by that. Sounds like you mean target scores on a range.
It's just not how I was taught to hunt, different strokes in your case I guess. I was taught to consider what's beyond the game in case of a miss or penetrate through, and don't take the shot if there's any risk behind the game. You can't really do that if you're leading your shot. As well I was taught to not shoot at running game. Bird shooting is different and is the only time I'd be leading when shooting game.
Again, wild game shooting is not the proper model for combat shooting. It is the correct model for wild game shooting. The correct model for combat shooting is combat shooting. The two are worlds apart while sharing some basics. Target range shooting is not a good model for either.
EDIT: ...however, I'm dragging this way off topic, apologies tbeard
...let's get back to the topic at hand.
No it isn't, all it is, is hitting a target. "Combat" is meaningless, an over generalization. You can't set a baseline like a tach at 5000 then say the engine idles at -4200, that is ridiculous.
Nothing to do with baseline, whatever you mean by that. Sounds like you mean target scores on a range.
It's just not how I was taught to hunt, different strokes in your case I guess. I was taught to consider what's beyond the game in case of a miss or penetrate through, and don't take the shot if there's any risk behind the game. You can't really do that if you're leading your shot. As well I was taught to not shoot at running game. Bird shooting is different and is the only time I'd be leading when shooting game.
Again, wild game shooting is not the proper model for combat shooting. It is the correct model for wild game shooting. The correct model for combat shooting is combat shooting. The two are worlds apart while sharing some basics. Target range shooting is not a good model for either.
EDIT: ...however, I'm dragging this way off topic, apologies tbeard
How do you think soldiers are taught to shoot?
OK, I understand that you don't understand how a baseline works.
Say you have a tach, baseline is zero, not 3700 or so, that way you are trying to show a max output at 2300 or something, it wouldn't make sense.
As a former soldier, let me chime in here a little bit.
Yes, you are taught basic marksmanship in very controlled circumstances, on ranges with stationary targets at fixed ranges. That's the starting point, and only the starting point.
That is not how you are trained to fight.
Unless you're sniper (and perhaps not even then), combat and game hunting have very, very little in common, and the same holds true for combat and marksmanship. Combat is dynamic. It's chaotic. All of your senses are dealing with input at very high levels. You're wearing a crapton of gear, and may be carrying close to your body weight. You're wearing a helmet which impairs your senses. You're expected to move, rapidly and often.
And the other guy is shooting back. Maybe shooting back a lot.
Most small arms combat takes place at fairly close range. And a hell of a lot of small arms fire isn't actually aimed very much - it's suppressive fire, designed to keep the other guy from shooting at your other elements while they maneuver.
Look for some of Tod Glenn's posts around here about the "Myth of the Rifleman".
Based on your statements, I assure you that your ownership of an AK and whatever research you've previously done have given you an inadequate understanding of combat shooting.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
How can combat be meaningless when what we are discussing is shooting during COMBAT in a Traveller game, not TARGET shooting in a Traveller game.
The 8+required to hit is for a combat environment, and in a combat environment a low hit chance is more realistic.
I typically require a player roll 12+ to hit if they describe their character as taking a snap shot while trying to conceal themselves, evade a bit whatever.
If they remain still or move slowly they can get the 8+
If they remain still and take careful aim for a round I'll give them a base of 2+ to hit, but they have to spend the whole turn as a sitting duck (very useful for a first shot from concealment).
Usual DMs for dex, skill, range, target movement.
Yes, exactly how we were taught to control our units and conduct a firefight through the use of area fire, suppressive fire, etc.; small arms statistically cause only 2-3% of battlefield casualties. It is all physics. Most of the time soldiers, if they fire their weapon at all, either just fire in a direction or at a target the size of a dot.
Last edited:
Use the normal rules, plus the evading rule as I stated and it is easy to get a -12 dm. Combat = modified, target = correction factor, and the game can model it well. Often the only to hit I use is a natural 12 against those dm's, which is a 1 in 36 chance of hitting or put in a percentile from a rational number: 2.8%, which fits perfectly the statistical evaluation. The system works.
Last edited:
I shifted to hitting on a roll of 12+ with three dice. That helped a lot.
(Then I changed to my own house rules which uses D20.
)Hans
For what it is worth I'll throw in my two-cents. I've shot rifles and pistols of about every type imaginable (except the reallllly awesome zoomy new heavy caliber types) since I was like around 11. I was on a rifle team competing in static target precision shooting with rifles back all through High School (Jr. NRA) and in the '80s as an adult (local NRA team). I was good enough to win medals and all and could consistently drill a round at 200 yds through nearly the same hole again and again. And my rifle wasn't one of those flashy jobs you see in more recent comps - it was just a bolt-action Ruger.
But the target wasn't moving or shooting back at me and I am not a very excitable type anyway.
I also competitively fenced, too for 12 years from 1980-92 on the national level and was in the A class. I was very, very good with all three weapons but mainly sabre....and back then you had to use the point and the edge in sabre and it wasn't electric like nowadays so it was lot harder back then. I have a box of medals and ribbons from all that too.
But the blades wouldn't do more than bruise me and I wasn't fighting for my life.
As a LEO for nearly 13 years, however, I have had my Caliber Press Officer Safety episode involving a guy with a knife who got inside my zone in the dark before I could react fast enough. He sliced open my vest but me (thankfully), and then it was all wrestle-mania until I got the guy face down and persuaded him to drop the knife. I got a few minor cuts but it taught me what I had always been taught - expect to get cut if you want to win.
And all my years of flashing blades and fancy footwork didn't mean jack in the real thing. All my years of hand-to-hand defensive combat training helped, but the fancier moves were forgotten - mainly I just kept remembering to focus on controlling the dang knife arm and ignore his punches. SO THE REAL THING IS DIFFERENT.
As a LEO who taught others combat shooting and tactics, and had to learn the art of the urban rifle (big tip - you can't miss...might hit grandma down the street....any of you guys ever consider that in running a Trav session? Hilarious when the PC's have burned down the corner coffee shop because half their shots miss...but I digress) to be allowed to carry one, I can tell you that not even civilian combat is like target shooting.
If you would like just a taste...a smidgeon of what it might be like then do this: go get a dueling tree. Its a zoomy widget that is a pole with 3-5 metal targets that swing from one side of the pole to the other when you hit it. Two guys stand there and fire at it until the winner gets all the targets cleared from his side before his opponent.
But first......go run around until you are out of breath and then sprint up to the line and wait till the THIRD guy behind you and your opponent starts screaming at you guys to "Gun, Gun, Gun,....fire..fire...fire...", and might even stand between you with a gun of his own that he shoots off at the targets to "help keep it interesting". Oh Lord, but I loved doing that to super-sniper types who thought they knew more than me because they were half my age and could "shoot the wings off a fly ant near a hunert' yards." They were much surprised at how in a real fight you are only about half as good as you are on your worst day at the range. And this was just a simulation...I know the few times I had to point a gun at someone and be ready to shoot if they didn't drop their weapon and hit the ground that my heart was beating so fast I thought it'd explode and I doubt highly that I breathed much.
If you really think that's too easy then do the same thing but you and your opponent have to also move from side to side depending on which way the instructor tells you.
All those things mean you are A) realistically adrenalized, B) reduced skill-wise to your lowest common denominator, and C) sensory overloaded since you'll have so much going on at the same time you'll be dropping mags and ready to just charge the dang target and start beating on it.
Oh, and if that isn't enough there are virtual ranges now that have shock belts to enhance the experience even further by simulating a hit. The shocks go up or down depending on how serious the hit might be.
So when my players, none of whom have ever so much as done more than plink at cans a few times or goes hunting once a year, tries to argue with me over the reality of how hard it can be to hit a target in combat I only have to point at my wall of medals, "That's the fun, sporty way that won't get you killed.", and then over at my single expert ribbon from the agency I worked at and say, "That's the reality way. And it was a lot harder to get that single ribbon than all those pretty medals because earning that ribbon meant learning to fight for my life." They don't argue anymore.
But the target wasn't moving or shooting back at me and I am not a very excitable type anyway.
I also competitively fenced, too for 12 years from 1980-92 on the national level and was in the A class. I was very, very good with all three weapons but mainly sabre....and back then you had to use the point and the edge in sabre and it wasn't electric like nowadays so it was lot harder back then. I have a box of medals and ribbons from all that too.
But the blades wouldn't do more than bruise me and I wasn't fighting for my life.
As a LEO for nearly 13 years, however, I have had my Caliber Press Officer Safety episode involving a guy with a knife who got inside my zone in the dark before I could react fast enough. He sliced open my vest but me (thankfully), and then it was all wrestle-mania until I got the guy face down and persuaded him to drop the knife. I got a few minor cuts but it taught me what I had always been taught - expect to get cut if you want to win.
And all my years of flashing blades and fancy footwork didn't mean jack in the real thing. All my years of hand-to-hand defensive combat training helped, but the fancier moves were forgotten - mainly I just kept remembering to focus on controlling the dang knife arm and ignore his punches. SO THE REAL THING IS DIFFERENT.
As a LEO who taught others combat shooting and tactics, and had to learn the art of the urban rifle (big tip - you can't miss...might hit grandma down the street....any of you guys ever consider that in running a Trav session? Hilarious when the PC's have burned down the corner coffee shop because half their shots miss...but I digress) to be allowed to carry one, I can tell you that not even civilian combat is like target shooting.
If you would like just a taste...a smidgeon of what it might be like then do this: go get a dueling tree. Its a zoomy widget that is a pole with 3-5 metal targets that swing from one side of the pole to the other when you hit it. Two guys stand there and fire at it until the winner gets all the targets cleared from his side before his opponent.
But first......go run around until you are out of breath and then sprint up to the line and wait till the THIRD guy behind you and your opponent starts screaming at you guys to "Gun, Gun, Gun,....fire..fire...fire...", and might even stand between you with a gun of his own that he shoots off at the targets to "help keep it interesting". Oh Lord, but I loved doing that to super-sniper types who thought they knew more than me because they were half my age and could "shoot the wings off a fly ant near a hunert' yards." They were much surprised at how in a real fight you are only about half as good as you are on your worst day at the range. And this was just a simulation...I know the few times I had to point a gun at someone and be ready to shoot if they didn't drop their weapon and hit the ground that my heart was beating so fast I thought it'd explode and I doubt highly that I breathed much.
If you really think that's too easy then do the same thing but you and your opponent have to also move from side to side depending on which way the instructor tells you.
All those things mean you are A) realistically adrenalized, B) reduced skill-wise to your lowest common denominator, and C) sensory overloaded since you'll have so much going on at the same time you'll be dropping mags and ready to just charge the dang target and start beating on it.
Oh, and if that isn't enough there are virtual ranges now that have shock belts to enhance the experience even further by simulating a hit. The shocks go up or down depending on how serious the hit might be.
So when my players, none of whom have ever so much as done more than plink at cans a few times or goes hunting once a year, tries to argue with me over the reality of how hard it can be to hit a target in combat I only have to point at my wall of medals, "That's the fun, sporty way that won't get you killed.", and then over at my single expert ribbon from the agency I worked at and say, "That's the reality way. And it was a lot harder to get that single ribbon than all those pretty medals because earning that ribbon meant learning to fight for my life." They don't argue anymore.
Last edited:
But on the other hand...this is just a game so make it as real or fun (or both) as you want. I don't make it ultra-real anymore because I want it to be fun - punishing and painful, to encourage role-playing and not just wargaming, but still fun. PC's die, but NPC's generally die faster.
Players have learned not to just jump into combat against professionals becasue not only do the pros carry better toys (which I know players covet so), but because the pros tend to be, well, professional. So the pros tend to know what they are doing and be a little better than the average character. That also discourages every session into turning into some old-school first-person shooter.
It also preserves the local coffee houses and parked air/rafts that the players damage or burn down from all those misses and suppression fire while scooting from behind one parked vehicle to another. The best line I ever heard from a player was after having practically leveled half a city block with RAM grenades, laser rifles, gauss rifles, and auto-shotguns blazing away and missing half the time was, "Well, great, here's another planet we can never come back to."
Players have learned not to just jump into combat against professionals becasue not only do the pros carry better toys (which I know players covet so), but because the pros tend to be, well, professional. So the pros tend to know what they are doing and be a little better than the average character. That also discourages every session into turning into some old-school first-person shooter.
It also preserves the local coffee houses and parked air/rafts that the players damage or burn down from all those misses and suppression fire while scooting from behind one parked vehicle to another. The best line I ever heard from a player was after having practically leveled half a city block with RAM grenades, laser rifles, gauss rifles, and auto-shotguns blazing away and missing half the time was, "Well, great, here's another planet we can never come back to."
Sounds to me like he should have been worrying about getting away from it first.
Hans
Use the normal rules, plus the evading rule as I stated and it is easy to get a -12 dm. Combat = modified, target = correction factor, and the game can model it well. Often the only to hit I use is a natural 12 against those dm's, which is a 1 in 36 chance of hitting or put in a percentile from a rational number: 2.8%, which fits perfectly the statistical evaluation. The system works.
I have always used the rule that no matter how bad the odds are that a natural 12 means the angels have smiled upon you and you hit the target (or fixed the flux capacitor, etc.) while a natural snakeyes means that no matter how good you are those same angels just peed on your musket (or blew a fuse in your laser rifle).
Once in a while the stars align just right and have made for some good stories about when some PC saved himself or everyone else by kinda just blasting away with no chance to hit but when boxcars came up was a hero. Just like the opposite ones with the super elite Marine with Gauss rifle-5 rolled snakeyes and only heard a low "buzzzzzzz" come out of his rifle.
Last edited:
Sounds to me like he should have been worrying about getting away from it first.
Hans
Oh heck yeah! - you would think that in a party of 4-5 people one of them would have thought that maybe running would have been a better idea? But noooooo..."Unleash the hounds!" tends to be the battlecry and it's off to the races.
I think it comes from playing D&D in between Traveller games.
Yes, 12 a crit hit, 2 weapon malfunction, which in a lot of battles, that is about all one has. I think that most people are not understanding a what a baseline reading is. Then again, I remember telling a another cadet at an m2 when he couldn't get his SR right: "dude, it's a function, just with -a." He couldn't understand, turns out he was an english major.
here's game houserules from my wiki:
This is a cut and paste from Don McKinney’s errata pdf:
Page 42, Special Considerations, Darkness and Night (omission): Poor lighting conditions may restrict the ability of an individual to see and attack. Total darkness restricts engagements to close and short range. Gun attacks at greater than short range are subject to DM of –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 of –6.
Electronic sights eliminate negative DMs due to darkness and poor lighting.
Page 42, Special Considerations, Cover and Concealment (omission): 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.
Targets are considered under cover if they are behind a solid object which a shot cannot penetrate (such as a wall, rock, or heavy bulkhead). An individual under cover cannot be attacked; an individual in concealment cannot be attacked unless the attacker has some reason to shoot into the area. A target may be partially concealed by walls, objects, atmospheric conditions, or darkness. Targets are considered concealed if they cannot be viewed by an
attacker. If fully concealed, a target cannot be attacked.
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 remain partially concealed, they are allowed a defending DM of –1.
A personal rule I modify is the evading rule, one can shoot while evading, but the DM is applied to shooting as well as being shot at, the rule from Book 1:
Evade: A combatant, at any range, may state evade as a status. The person may
not make any attack (no swings, blows, or shots are allowed) during the combat
round and may not use his weapon to parry or block (see expertise); he or she
receives an advantageous DM in the defense, based on range from the attacker (-1 if
at short or close range, -2 if at medium range, -4 if at long or very long range).
Thus if firing while evading at long range, one gets both a -4 to hit, but is -4 to be hit.
One minor change is all I need.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Yup, double tap is just a clever name; nothing more.
Regarding to hit chances and damages, here's an excerpt from a post I made some years back:
From my limited research, bullet lethality is largely a function of hitting (and reaching) a vulnerable organ. Anecdotally, big bullets like the .45 Auto were developed to knock down targets.
And most vulnerable organs are relatively well-protected by bone, muscle and tissue. Thus, it seems to me that bullets with greater penetration are more likely to reach a vulnerable organ and overall more lethal. I recall reading a very persuasive paper that argued this very point, but I don't have a cite handy.
Your suggested equation seems likely to me to calculate relative penetration. So the approach might well be valid. If I understand your proposal, if KE is constant, a smaller diameter bullet would yield a higher value. Intuitively, a smaller bullet with the same energy should go deeper. That said, raw kinetic energy seems to be a better overall predictor of antitank weapon penetration, which may or may not be applicable to small arms.
In any case, I do not think that calculated "penetration" (or kinetic energy) bears a linear relationship to damage. I.e., I don't think a number twice as high indicates twice the "damage". In fact, for reasons I've stated in other posts(1), I don't think that hit points are actually a very realistic way to model gunshot wounds. Paradoxically, I think that they work quite well in RPGs, though. [The resource management aspect of hit points adds drama and engages the players IMHO]
Maybe the best use of things like muzzle energy and bullet diameter would be to rank bullets against each other, rather than produce some kind of mathematically precise "damage" rating.
It is interesting, by the way, to consider real world gun combat examples when talking about RPGs. In the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral, 20-30 shots were fired, mostly from pistols at 10 feet or less. There were 9 hits (not including the shotgun blast that hit Tom McClaury), implying an overall hit rate of abour 30-50%. However, the real "to hit" percentage might be lower, as Billy Clanton was hit 5 times in rapid succession (he may not have been dodging effectively after the first hit) and Tom McClaury was shot once while collapsing from the shotgun blast. [Assuming Billy Clanton was a "sitting duck" after, say, the second hit, the overall hit rate drops to 15-25%...]
In CT (and Striker) these men would have hit their target 83% of the time (5+ on 2d), before adding any skill or advantageous DEX modifiers.
Frank Chadwick, in "Lethality in Roleplaying Small Arms Systems", analyzes a number of gun battles between US police and Mexican gangs on the US/Mexico border. They were using revolvers and a few shotguns. Some interesting conclusions:
--US police fired 90 shots and hit with 29.
--a "...total of fifteen officers and suspects were wounded ...and they were hit by a total of 32 bullets. Most of the injured men were struck by a single bullet; four were struck by multiple bullets, and of these one was struck by eight bullets. Of these fifteen casualties, 2 were killed almost instantly while the other thirteen survived and recovered. All of those who suffered multiple gunshot wounds recovered. That is, none of the fatalities were caused by a cumulative build-up of trauma, but rather were due to a single, almost instantly fatal, wound."
--In terms of fatality, only 1 of the 11 chest wounds were fatal (!), the single head wound was fatal, and none of the 4 abdomen wounds were fatal.
Regarding to hit chances and damages, here's an excerpt from a post I made some years back:
From my limited research, bullet lethality is largely a function of hitting (and reaching) a vulnerable organ. Anecdotally, big bullets like the .45 Auto were developed to knock down targets.
And most vulnerable organs are relatively well-protected by bone, muscle and tissue. Thus, it seems to me that bullets with greater penetration are more likely to reach a vulnerable organ and overall more lethal. I recall reading a very persuasive paper that argued this very point, but I don't have a cite handy.
Your suggested equation seems likely to me to calculate relative penetration. So the approach might well be valid. If I understand your proposal, if KE is constant, a smaller diameter bullet would yield a higher value. Intuitively, a smaller bullet with the same energy should go deeper. That said, raw kinetic energy seems to be a better overall predictor of antitank weapon penetration, which may or may not be applicable to small arms.
In any case, I do not think that calculated "penetration" (or kinetic energy) bears a linear relationship to damage. I.e., I don't think a number twice as high indicates twice the "damage". In fact, for reasons I've stated in other posts(1), I don't think that hit points are actually a very realistic way to model gunshot wounds. Paradoxically, I think that they work quite well in RPGs, though. [The resource management aspect of hit points adds drama and engages the players IMHO]
Maybe the best use of things like muzzle energy and bullet diameter would be to rank bullets against each other, rather than produce some kind of mathematically precise "damage" rating.
It is interesting, by the way, to consider real world gun combat examples when talking about RPGs. In the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral, 20-30 shots were fired, mostly from pistols at 10 feet or less. There were 9 hits (not including the shotgun blast that hit Tom McClaury), implying an overall hit rate of abour 30-50%. However, the real "to hit" percentage might be lower, as Billy Clanton was hit 5 times in rapid succession (he may not have been dodging effectively after the first hit) and Tom McClaury was shot once while collapsing from the shotgun blast. [Assuming Billy Clanton was a "sitting duck" after, say, the second hit, the overall hit rate drops to 15-25%...]
In CT (and Striker) these men would have hit their target 83% of the time (5+ on 2d), before adding any skill or advantageous DEX modifiers.
Frank Chadwick, in "Lethality in Roleplaying Small Arms Systems", analyzes a number of gun battles between US police and Mexican gangs on the US/Mexico border. They were using revolvers and a few shotguns. Some interesting conclusions:
--US police fired 90 shots and hit with 29.
--a "...total of fifteen officers and suspects were wounded ...and they were hit by a total of 32 bullets. Most of the injured men were struck by a single bullet; four were struck by multiple bullets, and of these one was struck by eight bullets. Of these fifteen casualties, 2 were killed almost instantly while the other thirteen survived and recovered. All of those who suffered multiple gunshot wounds recovered. That is, none of the fatalities were caused by a cumulative build-up of trauma, but rather were due to a single, almost instantly fatal, wound."
--In terms of fatality, only 1 of the 11 chest wounds were fatal (!), the single head wound was fatal, and none of the 4 abdomen wounds were fatal.
I think, in terms of mortality from wounding the fact that Traveller doesn't cover things like shock, bleeding out, and the relative levels of immediate access (or not) to trauma centers means some of the gunfight examples from real life are not wholly valid. Most people in gunfights today survive the experience so long as they are not immediately killed, or bleed out if a trauma center's chopper can't get there. Even the most unbelievable injuries on the battlefields today have a far higher survival rate than only 10 or 20 years ago.
Back in the day a gut shot of the OK Corral was a death sentence even if you didn't bleed out and go into shock. Now it's survivable. With armor you might get hit a lot but getting hurt at all depends on what hits you and where. Traveller doesn't have hit location so maybe that ought to be addressed?
The number of misses to hits is...but then, its a game, and not real life - if you want to jigger the odds then make your rolls behind the screen or something. But in my experience players like to have the odds in their favor a little bit - they are the heroes after all. So if they get to dump more baddies than is realistic then what's wrong with that?
On the other hand if you wanna kill more players you can do that, too, and let me suggest that the Striker or AHL systems are far more effective at that than the LBB1 system.
Oh wait...shock is in the equation to a small degree - mainly the reasoning behind the why of that first hit being taken off one attribute all at once. But shock doesn't usually work that way in RL, it s a gradual thing so maybe someone should figure out how to complicate the wounding process with progressive damage than how to hit less often if you are interested in making it more "realistic"? They probably had that sort of thing in The Morrow Project or somewhere.
Back in the day a gut shot of the OK Corral was a death sentence even if you didn't bleed out and go into shock. Now it's survivable. With armor you might get hit a lot but getting hurt at all depends on what hits you and where. Traveller doesn't have hit location so maybe that ought to be addressed?
The number of misses to hits is...but then, its a game, and not real life - if you want to jigger the odds then make your rolls behind the screen or something. But in my experience players like to have the odds in their favor a little bit - they are the heroes after all. So if they get to dump more baddies than is realistic then what's wrong with that?
On the other hand if you wanna kill more players you can do that, too, and let me suggest that the Striker or AHL systems are far more effective at that than the LBB1 system.
Oh wait...shock is in the equation to a small degree - mainly the reasoning behind the why of that first hit being taken off one attribute all at once. But shock doesn't usually work that way in RL, it s a gradual thing so maybe someone should figure out how to complicate the wounding process with progressive damage than how to hit less often if you are interested in making it more "realistic"? They probably had that sort of thing in The Morrow Project or somewhere.
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
And this is what the Traveller combat rules simulate, not target shooting, not sports shooting - combat shooting.
