FF&S for CT

[Supplement Four]

(I have a few problems with the -5 no-skill penalty, but it seldom comes up).

This comes up extremely rarely. That rule is for when the GM decides the character has absolutely no clue about what he is attempting to do.

Picking up an alien weapon that doesn't work intuitively. Or, maybe when the weapon doesn't fit human physiology--a Hiver weapon, for instance, that is basically a ball with a snout on it, and the palm of the hand has to grip the ball and press three buttons down simultaneously. I'm sure it can be done, but be done well in combat? Doubtful. Thus, the -5 DM.

GMs can also expand on the rule, taking it into situations where, "You want to conduct brain surgery? But, you don't even have Medical-1? You don't even have any background experience in the field. You're from a TL4 world! OK, give it a shot. Cut open his head, but do it with a -5 no-skill DM."

I hardly ever use that unskilled penalty in my game. I note that most characters know all weapons in LBB1 at Skill-0, but not all characters. Doctors, for example, from Sup 4, are subject to the non-skilled rule for weapons they have no skill in.

I think this makes sense. It's career-based. Military people can pick up weapons easier than someone who was a child, went to school, then spent his adulthood in more school.

But, also note that CT is very, very generous with Skill-0 skills. Anytime a character would logically have some knowledge of a skill, it is appropriate to give that character a Skill-0 in the area of expertise whether it was originally on the character's sheet or not.

There are many, many examples of this.

Plus, this is what makes a character like: 758995 Admin-1, AutoPistol-1 extremely playable. In most situations, he's not throwing with a -5 DM. Most of the time, he's just throwing with no bonus.

I just find it a bother to start with a simple 8+ to hit, then go to a table to adjust for Weapon vs Range, go to another table to adjust for Weapon vs Armor, adjust for skill and, in general, end up still needing a 7, 8 or 9 to hit. It always seemed that it could have been presented a little cleaner.

I've never been fond of tables either. If you check out the character sheets I have in my sig, you'll see that I have some short hand for the tables on them. Each piece of equipment in my game is contained on a single sheet of paper (makes it easy to take out of the notebook and pass around equipment), and on those, it is copied the weapon's stats plus the DMs from the tables.

Basically, what happens is that players learn their stuff pretty quickly, not having to look up a table. If they get a new weapon in the game, I'll quickly fill out a piece of paper and slide it to them. There, all the weapon stats are, and they can just look down at it until they are used to using the weapon.

I do understand an aversion to tables. Never liked it much in D&D. Never liked it much in Traveller (at least, with CT, we're only talking about a few tabels).

But, what I do like about it is that weapons can be easily differintiated between each other. They're "not the exact same" like they are in most other Traveller games. Take MT. They all have the same number to-hit. It's all the same, no matter which weapon you pick up.

In CT, a GM can easily customize a weapon on the spot. Let's say a company is known for better long range rifles. Well, simply add a +1 DM to the Long Range column on the rilfe, and you have a weapon that is slightly different than the generic weapon.

Or, maybe the players happen upon a new type of ammo. Maybe it adds some exceptional punching power against Cloth armor. Well, simply add a +2 DM vs. Cloth, and now you've got a nice little "drop" you can put into your game to reward the players. They'll find this kind of stuff "cool".

You can do the same thing with armor types, as is already in the game. Cloth-1, Ablat-3, etc.

These are all features of CT that I find it hard to live without when I look at other Traveller editions.

 

[atpollard]

This comes up extremely rarely. That rule is for when the GM decides the character has absolutely no clue about what he is attempting to do.

Actually, without the GM invoking his right to change the modifiers on the fly, this comes up most of the time when the –5 penalty is applied.

For example, the average urban citizen has probably never fired a revolver in their life – non-proficiency penalty = -5. The typical ‘Saturday night special’ revolver, requires a Dex of 7+ (a Dex of 6 or less has a –2 penalty). The revolver also has a +1 vs an unarmored opponent, and a +1 at close range, a +2 at short range and a –3 at medium range.

Joe Average (777777) attempts to shoot at an unarmored bad guy standing 20 feet (6 meters) away – non-prof, no dex penalty, medium range, unarmored opponent. He must roll 15+ on 2D6 to hit (8+5-0+3-1=15). So the average person has no chance to wound an opponent at ‘pistol range’. [If ‘Joe average had a dex=6, then he would suffer another –2 penalty for 17+ required to hit.]

So Joe Average moves closer and tries again to shoot at an unarmored bad guy standing 10 feet (3 meters) away – non-prof, no dex penalty, short range, unarmored opponent. He must roll 10+ on 2D6 to hit (8+5-0-2-1=10). So the average person has a 1 in 12 chance to wound an opponent at ‘sword range’ (about 8%). On average, two typical citizens will need to empty their revolvers, reload and empty their revolvers a second time before they will even hit each other. [If ‘Joe average had a dex=6, then he would suffer another –2 penalty for 12+ required to hit – a 1 in 36 chance (about 3%).]

The bad guy attempts to grapple with Joe. Joe Average tries again to shoot at an unarmored bad guy standing 2 feet (<1 meter) away – non-prof, no dex penalty, close range, unarmored opponent. He must roll 11+ on 2D6 to hit (8+5-0-1-1=11). So the average person has a 1 in 18 chance to wound an opponent at ‘contact range’ (about 6%). On average, two typical citizens will need to load and empty their revolvers three times before they hit each other. [If ‘Joe average had a dex=6, then he would suffer another –2 penalty for 13+ required to hit – back to no chance.]

I have never fired a revolver and I would probably have trouble shooting someone with a revolver at 30 meters, but I would not need 12 to 36 shots to hit at 3 meters! The –5 penalty is simply overwhelming for a 2D6 mechanic.

 

[Supplement Four]

Part I of a two part reply.

Not an unreasonable point. But the problem is that by your reasoning, *no* weapon really hits the target until the second hit (most CT weapons do 3 dice damage, which will not typically knock 2 stats down).

I suspect this was a design issue balancing the deadliness of the game vs. playability. Combat is still dangerous, because, on average, a character will be knocked out the first time he gets hit due to the first blood rule (and there's still plenty of room for him to be shot, too, depending on the defender's stats). Even after the first blood rule, combat is still as dangerous because stats are weakened. But, characters aren't killed as easily (what fun is it to play a dead character?). So, as I said, I think this is a design issue to balance combat.

Two things to consider when looking at the CT Combat system: First, there is a bit of abstractness to it not unlike D&D hit points. A shot is made. Damage is looked at. And then, if needed, the GM describes what happens based on what he knows from the damage inflicted. "You saw his chest explode with a spray of blood. You must have punctured a lung. He goes down....Or.....your bullets ripple into the brick, fragments spraying everywhere, as the target ducks back behind the corner."

Both of those scenarios could happen with a "hit" and a "damage" roll. In the former, the damage was enough to obviously kill the target. In the second, the damage might have knocked the target unconscious (he fell behind the corner), or maybe his stats are just lowered, damage from the brick fragments.

Most of the time what happens in CT combat? The target is knocked unconscious. Now, that's not realistic, I know. And, as I said in my first paragraph above, I think that was a design issue to keep characters alive but to also have a combat system that was much deadlier than what you get with D&D. On that level, CT combat succeeds.

The percentage of people being knocked unconscious, though, does bother me. And, I do still tweak that in two ways: First, "unconscious" actually means "incapacitated". Maybe the guy is alert and conscious but can't move. Or, maybe he's moving around but severely stunned, unaware of his surroundings. Either way, he's ineffective in combat.

The second way I deal with this is the Stun Rule I created. What happens is, when one stat goes to zero, the defender is allowed to throw END or less on 2D. If successful, the character is stunned for one round, unable to do anything (losing an action), and his zeroed stat is placed at half it's fully healed number. If the END throw is not successful, then wounds are handled normally (the character is incapacitated).

This, I find, makes the game just as playable as before but also makes a little more sense than always knocking people unconscious for 10 minutes.

Then, it does so and it's quite easy to do so automatically.

This is the other side of the coin. Yep. Autofire usually does result in a gunshot wound to the victim (but, there is plenty of room for other things to happen too).

I'd also note that hit points are a lousy way of representing gunshot wounds, based on what we know about such things in the real world.

I agree and disagree. From a real world perspective, you are right. And, I'll admit, I usually like systems that don't fuss around with abstract hit points.

Note that CT hit points aren't just "hit points" as they are in D&D. If you hit a D&D character with a longsword, doing 1d8 points of damage, that really does nothing to the character unless he's got 8 or less hit points left. If he's still got 33 hit points, then it's no big deal at all. Nothing really happened.

With CT, the character's actual stats are reduced, so there is an effect to each point drop.

Vanilla CT says to ignore stat drops when in combat for DMs and things. I ignore that rule as well. If a character's DEX drops, then he probably isn't getting the DEX DM for his weapon that he used to get earlier in the round.

Striker/AHL is far better, though you have to ditch the idea of 2 light wounds = a serious wound and 2 serious wounds = death.

It's certainly an attractive way of doing things. I do like it. But, I wouldn't say it's "far better".

Why? You've got to place wound effects on the character. What happens with a light wound? His movement is halved. That's it?

In CT, the character's STR, or DEX, or END is lowered, giving you a better picture of how the character is imparied.

I think both systems have their pros and cons. I like both (and use the CT method).

In any case, my objection is that easily allowing automatic hits (or "grazes" or whatever) is undramatic and not a very good model of what goes on in a firefight.

As I said above, I think it's a design issue. They'd rather knock characters out and keep them alive than kill them most of the time.

Also, as I said above, I didn't like that aspect of it that much either, so I created the Stun Rule. Which, I think, bridges the gap nicely.

It keeps "playability" and "deadliness", and these are proportioned nicely with "reality".

For my tastes, anyway.

(My response continues in the next post.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Part II of my two part reply.

Adding Book 4+ characters and weapons just makes it too easy to make hits (or grazes) automatic.

They are military grade weapons. I think that was the point.

Here's a very likely scenario from CT.

Take the first two Marines in 1001 Characters.

Marine
4654B6
ATV-1, Cutlass-1

Lieutanant
956959
Vacc-1, Cutlass-1, Revolver-1

Note that neither have a rifle skill. If they'd had rifle, I'd convert it to Combat Rifleman. But, considering they both went through basic, we'll give them Combat Rifleman-0. (Again, this is a very likely scenario from a CT game. These are the types of characters one sees in a CT game.)

Both characters have Gauss Rifles. The Lieutanant also has a pistol.

Coming around a corner, into an alley, the Lt. sees the Marine swing his gauss rifle from his shoulder. The Lt. moves for cover behind the dumpster.

We begin the round with the Marine, braced, aiming his guass rifle at the Lt. But, the Lt. has cover behind the dumpster.

The Marine fires a four round burst at the Lt. That's two attack throws, by the autofire rule.

I'll roll real dice as I write...because I don't know what's going to happen...and I find it fun!

-Marine attack-
+0 DM Skill
-2 DM DEX
+4 DM Medium Range
+3 DM Cloth Armor
-4 DM Cover
------
+1 DM

The Marine gets two attacks at 2D +1 each (or 2D for 7+). He has a 58% chance of hitting each time.

He fires: 2D = 3,2; 2D = 3,3

(Remember, I'm rolling real dice. I don't know what's going to happen.)

Bullets spark as they dent the dumpster and richocet off the cement ground. The GM gets a little creative and says one of the bullets actually pierces the outer side of the dumpster, and the Lt. can hear it zipping around inside.

Now, it's the Lt's turn.

The Lt. unstrapps his guass rifle and leans out around the side of the dumpster on one knee, firing a burst at his attacker.

-Lt.'s Attack-
+0 DM Skill
-2 DM DEX
-3 DM Draw Penalty
+4 DM Medium Range
+3 DM Cloth Armor
------
+2 DM

So, the Lt. needs a 6+ roll to hit. He gets two chances to hit as well. Each shot, he's got a 72% chance of hitting.

The Lt. fires: 2D = 5,4; 2D = 3,3

Whoops! Looks like the Lt. is tearing up the Marine. Let's see what happens.

First throw for damage is subject to the First Blood Rule. 4D = 2,1,5,4. That's 12 points of damage. Our Marine is going down. I roll randomly to place this damage on the Marine's physicals: 1D = 6. That means we start at the Marine's END.

Marines' stats go to 460. Next, his STR is zeroed out: 060. And, the last 4 points are applied to the Marine's DEX. He ends up with stats 020.

The Marine is blasted. Dying. Lying there bleeding in the ally.

But...we've still got to apply damage from the second attack: 4D = 1,1,1,5

The Marine is dead. Kaput. All gone. Tits-up.

That's what the Marine gets for not using his option during his round to move. If he was smart, he would have fired and then used his movement to give himself cover. With cover, BOTH of the shots would have missed. (I didn't move him because I didn't want to protract out this fight.)

My point: This combat system is quite fun, deadly, and much better, I think, than what you are giving it credit for....even with Book 4 weapons.

In addition, the CT system makes it very difficult to add new weapons or armor (other than by the clumsy expedient of basing it off an existing weapon).

How do you figure? What would you like to add? I'll show you how I'd do it.

It also contains no system for resolving anti-vehicle fire (and such a system would be far more clumsy than needed).

Disagree. The rules are there if you look for them. But, CT also encourages the GM to get creative.

One way (not THE way) to resolve this is how it is presented in Across the Bright Face. A damage table for an ATV is presented, not unlike starship combat. This table is meant for vehicle-to-vehicle combat. But, a rule is presented for small arms fire too.

Every 24 points of damage inflicted by small arms allows one throw on the damage table.

As I said, GMs in CT are encouraged to be creative. Thus, one could "copy" this system for a different type of vehicle.

Let's say a ground car is used. Think of 6 items to go on the damage chart, then make a chart on which you can throw 1D.

I'd say your typical ground car isn't armored like an ATV, so let's decrease the amount of small arms damage needed to throw on the chart. We could say, for every 6 points of small arms damage, one throw on the damage chart is allowed. That way, small arms can be quite lethal to a ground car without a single shot necessarily incapacitating the vehicle.

Putting things together like this are part of a GM's duties when preparing the adventure. If you anticipate NPCs, then roll up some NPCs for the characters to interact with. If you want them to find some new equipment, then create it. If you think their small arms will fire at a vehicle, then use the method above to prepare (or design your own system).

I think that's the "fun" of CT. The creativity it requires.

(This has been a very long post. Sorry about that. A lot to read, I know.)

 

[Supplement Four]

Actually, without the GM invoking his right to change the modifiers on the fly, this comes up most of the time when the –5 penalty is applied.

I think you're being harsh with that rule. First off, typically, in CT, if a character isn't skill, there is no penalty. He simply tries to roll whatever the roll is.

For example, the layman can attempt to bring a low passenger out of cold sleep. It takes a 5+ throw.

If a Medic-2 attempts it, it's a 4+ throw. (This tells me the process is fairly automated.)

See, there is no penalty for not having medic skill.

Or, take the Vacc Suit skill. To maintain control in a zero-G environment, the roll is 10+. A character gets a +4 DM for each level of Vacc Suit skill.

Thus, somebody that isn't trained needs a 10+ throw. (DEX may help.)

If Vacc Suit-1, then the throw is 6+.

If Vacc Suit-2, then the throw is automatic, barring any other negative factors.

See, that -5 DM thing rarely pops up in a game.

Now, the rule reads as if it is only applied to weapons, and a CT purist would apply it only to unfamiliar weapons. But, still, I think you're being a bit harsh with the rule.

As in this example--

For example, the average urban citizen has probably never fired a revolver in their life – non-proficiency penalty = -5.

How many people do you know that have never fired a weapon? I'm thinking...if you put that handgun in the hands of my mom, then, you're right. The -5 DM would apply. If my dad used it, the -5 DM wouldn't apply.

Me, myself...I haven't had too much training with weapons. I've fired some (mostly when I was younger), but I know very little about weapons. But, do I think the -5 DM is appropriate for me? Nope. I'd say I'm a Skill-0 with maybe a DEX penalty (certainly no DEX bonus) at the worst.

I think that applies to most people.

See...the rule is rather harsh. A -5 DM is a huge penalty. And, there is precendent where the rule is ignored in the game. (All Merchants, even if they've never picked up a gun in their life, do not suffer the penalty.)

Since the rule is extreme, then the GM should apply the rule to extreme situations.

An elderly lady who's never fired a pistol? Or a young child? Or a Marine handling alien hardware that doesn't fit his physiology? Or someone who's never seen a mounted .50 machinegun before (as it has different firing mechanisms than a normal weapon)?

Yes. All of these get the -5 DM penalty.

Your average citizen? Even in real life that doesn't apply. I can't say that I'd blanket every citizen with the -5 DM. It's too harsh (as your examples prove...therefore, they shouldn't be implemented without good reason).

 

[Supplement Four]

@tbeard1999

TBeard,

I've got an idea. Why don't we do this. I think it'll be fun.

Let's, you and I, roll up a character. I'll be the GM. You, the player. We can roll up either a Marine or somone in the Army, either 4-Year chargen, or advanced, your choice.

Then, we'll do a quick little encounter in the ally, as I did with my example above.

I'll roll real dice. We'll do everything "by the book" exactly. If there are any "tweaks", then we both have to agree on them.

Let's see how it plays out.

Are you game?

 

[tbeard1999]

I suspect [using hit points] was a design issue balancing the deadliness of the game vs. playability.

Also, CT was a very early RPG design, so it really can't be faulted for using hit points, since every other game did.

Two things to consider when looking at the CT Combat system: First, there is a bit of abstractness to it not unlike D&D hit points.

Oh I agree. And if I didn't run military style adventures, I'd probably be fine with the CT system (though not with Book 4 characters and weapons). But common combat actions in my games include things like firing missiles at tanks or using heavy weapons, and for those purposes, I just don't like the CT system.

I agree and disagree [about hit points not representing gunshot damage well]. From a real world perspective, you are right.

And that's an issue for me. See, my friends are wargamers as well as roleplayers. I designed "A Fistful of TOWs", which is a very comprehensive modern miniature wargame.

Therefore, I expect more from a combat system than some might. I want it to model with reasonable fidelity real world combat. Of course, I also want the ability to control the danger level because I do like to run heroic games.

As I said above, I think it's a design issue. They'd rather knock characters out and keep them alive than kill them most of the time.

I have no problem with that. I'm just not convinced that the CT combat system is the best way to get there.

 

[tbeard1999]

TBeard,

I've got an idea. Why don't we do this. I think it'll be fun.

Let's, you and I, roll up a character. I'll be the GM. You, the player. We can roll up either a Marine or somone in the Army, either 4-Year chargen, or advanced, your choice.

Then, we'll do a quick little encounter in the ally, as I did with my example above.

I'll roll real dice. We'll do everything "by the book" exactly. If there are any "tweaks", then we both have to agree on them.

Let's see how it plays out.

Are you game?

I really don't have the time -- I'm too busy butchering Mongoose Traveller's combat system, which is worse than CT in almost every conceivable way. I also don't think that it will accomplish much. Probabilities are what they are. In the CT combat system, a net to hit modifier of +4 means that you will damage the target 91.66 of the time. That's just not too hard to get to. For a marine or army Book 4 character, 3 or 4 levels of gun combat are easy. The advantageous DEX modifier for most rifles is +2. But we've had this conversation before and I'm not moved to hijack any more of this thread. At the end of the day, I stand on my two comments -- (a) I don't think that it will be possible to create a design sequence that will exactly reproduce CT's ratings for weapons; and (b) I don't think the effort will be worth the result.

 

[Supplement Four]

I really don't have the time --

Alright.

In the CT combat system, a net to hit modifier of +4 means that you will damage the target 91.66 of the time. That's just not too hard to get to.

I find, in practice playing the game, it's not as common as you might think.

The survival rule must be enforced. That really keeps skills low, on average.

For a marine or army Book 4 character, 3 or 4 levels of gun combat are easy.

Not if you follow the rules. If the survival rule is enforced. Check out Sup 13 - Veterans. Not many high gun combat skills there at all.

Remember, the big equalizer of the Book 4 character vs. the Book 1 character is that the Book 4 character may have to throw survival by up to 4 times per term, whereas the Book 1 character has to throw it only once.

I find that people who say this are people who ignore the survival rule.

Looking through Sup 13 - Veterans, I see very few skills at Skill-3 or higher. Most are Skill-1 or Skill-2.

 

[Supplement Four]

I also don't think that it will accomplish much.

BTW, my point would have been to illustrate that characters generated in CT aren't quite as uber, on average, as you've been positing (as is shown in 1001 Characters and Veterans). It's rare to see a character with Skill-3 or higher. Most characters get Skill-1 or Skill-2 in their skills.

Chances are somewhat against that a high DEX will be thrown. Therefore, a "skill" might be spent rolling to improve DEX (which isn't automatic, 1-in-6 chance, usually) at the cost of rolling a gun combat skill.

Even if a high DEX is thrown, there's the ever present survival throw that must be passed. If not, that's the end of character generation.

It's a big "limiting" agent.

(SIDE NOTE: Regarding MGT. That system is allowing characters to re-enlist after failing survival, leading to more skills per character, and higher skills per character. This, I think, will break the 2D6 system MGT is using. It's better to go with a CT "skills lite" approach when dealing with 2D6...unless a lot of negative modifiers are typically used.)



As for Book 4, those are supposed to be hard-core, dangerous, military weapons--the best examples of the most dangerous available in the game. If you know you're going up against a foe armed to military grade weapons, then you'd better have military grade protection.

If you're going up against the epitome of the slug thrower, the gauss rifle, then you'd better be wearing the epitome of personal protection (Combat Armor or Battle Dress).

And...

These examples typically don't relfect what happens in a real game. It's only the stupid warriors that stand out in the open. Realistically, warriors move from cover to cover. And, in Traveller, that means a -4 DM for attacks against you.

What's a real average Marine in Classic Traveller? It'd be something like this: 777777 Combat Rifleman-1.

--Average Marine--
-2 DM DEX
+1 DM Combat Rifleman-1
+4 DM Medium Range
+0 DM Combat Armor/Battle Dress
-4 DM Cover
----
-1 DM

Really, the average Marine in CT needs to roll 2D for 9+ to hit (rolled twice for autofire) in the average combat situation.

Now, if you start making him an uber Marine, by giving him Skill-3 or better, on top of a DEX bonus...then, taking the target and removing armor...and removing cover...

...then, yeah, sure, the guass rifle will eat you up.

But, isn't that what its supposed to do to an unarmored, unprotected, target that is not hiding behind cover?

 

[Icosahedron]

ATP, I had this very problem in a game last night. I found that, far from being deadly, the rules I was trying to tweak gave really silly results. A marine (gun2) standing 5 feet from a target leaning around a corner (-2 cover) had less than a 50-50 chance of hitting his target. Admittedly, the firing player had some pretty low rolls, but I found that the only way he could actually hit was by panic-firing for an extra bonus. I think I need to tweak in an additional bonus for very short ranges. As you say, someone who knows which end of a gun to point would only have had a 50-50 chance to hit a target standing a sword's length away sticking his tongue out. (no positive or negative mods, 8+ to hit) Something needs fixing there.

 

[Supplement Four]

ATP, I had this very problem in a game last night. I found that, far from being deadly, the rules I was trying to tweak gave really silly results. A marine (gun2) standing 5 feet from a target leaning around a corner (-2 cover) had less than a 50-50 chance of hitting his target.

What was the exact situation?

What's the Marine's weapon, and what's his DEX?

Was the target wearing armor? Was the target evading?

I'm curious.




Take a Marine. DEX-7, Rifle-2, using an autorifle to fire at a target, under cover, just 5 feet away. Target is not armored.

--Marine attack--
+2 DM Skill
+0 DM DEX
+0 DM Short Range
+6 DM No Armor
-4 DM Cover
---
+4 DM

Using the autofire rule, that's two rolls of 2D for 4+. That's a 92% chance on each throw.

Chances are, your Marine will do 6D damage on the target....and 3D of it may be governed by the first blood rule.

I'd say that sounds just about right, don't you?

 

[Supplement Four]

CT combat discussion moved to new thread.

Hey folks, instead of keeping this thread off-topic, I've created a new one to continue our discussion of the CT combat system.

Click here to jump to that thread.

 

[Ishmael]

well..to try to bring this back on topic, perhaps someone should make up conversion /design rules for CT based on info like muzzle-energy or something...real world stuff as opposed to worrying about dm's, etc. That way any weapon design system that uses such info can be converted and real world gun info can be converted. I don't think it would have to be complex at all, although it might end up being like FF&S lite.

 

[tbeard1999]

Alright.
I find that people who say this are people who ignore the survival rule.

Looking through Sup 13 - Veterans, I see very few skills at Skill-3 or higher. Most are Skill-1 or Skill-2.

I use the survival roll. And all you have to do is run out about 10 Book 4 military characters in any of the random character generators to confirm my assessment.

And even with a skill of only 1 or 2, consider the advantageous DEX modifier of many weapons: +2 at DEX 8+ for assault rifles; +1 at DEX 8+ for rifles; +1 at DEX 9+ for most other guns.

Also, consider the armor and range modifiers in CT:

At medium range, these weapons will have the following to hit modifiers against unarmored and cloth armored targets:

Rifle +3/-2
Autorifle +8/+1
Assault Rifle (burst) +6/+1
Assault Rifle (ss) +1/-4
Carbine 0/-3
SMG +8/+0
Average +4.3/-1.16

At short range, here are the modifiers vs unarmored and cloth armored targets:

Rifle +4/-1
Autorifle +6/-1
Assault Rifle (burst) +5/0
Assault Rifle (ss) +3/-2
Carbine +3/-2
SMG +3/0
Average +4/-1

Using the averages, several conclusions are apparent:

1. Clearly, unarmored targets will be hit virtually automatically at short or medium range, with an average modifier of +4 *before* applying weapon skills, DEX mods, etc. Only the carbine and single shot assault rifle have a decent chance of *not* hitting an unarmored target at medium range.

2. Cloth armored targets fare better. The average modifier is -1, which indicates that the CT system might work okay with armored targets. However. this is really only true if you stay with Book 1 weapons (the assault rifle is not even as fearsome as the Book 1 autorifle, so it's okay). The ACR will get a +2 vs Cloth at medium range and the Gauss Rifle will get a +7.

And even cloth armored targets are in trouble if the system easily allows high skill and DEX modifier totals. In my experience, Book 4 characters are the worst offenders in this regard because (a) they average at least twice the number of skills as Book 1 characters; (b) gun combat skills are very common in the charts; and (c) the characters start with Combat Rifleman-1.

The real problem, ironically, is the same problem that Mongoose is having. The designer is trying to hang too many things on a single 2d6 roll. As a result, the system is very fragile and easy to break.

 

[Supplement Four]

And even cloth armored targets are in trouble if the system easily allows high skill and DEX modifier totals. In my experience, Book 4 characters are the worst offenders in this regard because (a) they average at least twice the number of skills as Book 1 characters; (b) gun combat skills are very common in the charts; and (c) the characters start with Combat Rifleman-1.

I'll reply in the new thread.

 

[atpollard]

well..to try to bring this back on topic, perhaps someone should make up conversion /design rules for CT based on info like muzzle-energy or something...real world stuff as opposed to worrying about dm's, etc. That way any weapon design system that uses such info can be converted and real world gun info can be converted. I don't think it would have to be complex at all, although it might end up being like FF&S lite.

I started to pursue this road once. I got as far as discovering that if you run around shooting a bunch of different bullets into a homogenious target (like clay) then the depth of the hole will be proportional to the momentum of the bullet - a high momentum makes a deeper hole than a low momentum. The total volume of the cavity created is proportional to the kinetic energy of the bullet.

Is CT 'Damage' related to momentum or kinetic energy? What about 'hit modifiers'?

Whichever you choose, the existing CT weapons will pose problems.
I wish you better luck than I had.

 

[Ishmael]

I started to pursue this road once. I got as far as discovering that if you run around shooting a bunch of different bullets into a homogenious target (like clay) then the depth of the hole will be proportional to the momentum of the bullet - a high momentum makes a deeper hole than a low momentum. The total volume of the cavity created is proportional to the kinetic energy of the bullet.

Is CT 'Damage' related to momentum or kinetic energy? What about 'hit modifiers'?

Whichever you choose, the existing CT weapons will pose problems.
I wish you better luck than I had.

I'll have to think about this, except I no longer have CT stuff except for AHL and Striker. I gave my old stuff away when I moved to MT. I've done conversions to MT from KE and the like ( FF&S1 to MT )....my ideas on this might be tainted by my preference for MT.

I never really liked how CT handled damage.
How about KE ( I'd use KE so the same method could be used with lasers and PAWS, etc that don't really have momentum ...okay PAWS do, but, well....) for damage and sight radii for to-hit dm's? I'd probably go with handling armor like in t4...armor subtracts dice, right? ( never played it).
It'd be a lot easier if I had CT damage/to_hit tables. Could someone point me to a few for comparison's sake?..not a full list, but just representative of common weapons.
I'll give it a shot....I'll see how much time I can steal from blender and sauerbraten to work on this....I have old ideas for a full combat system, so what the heck.

 

[Mithras]

Vehicle combat. Andy Slack wrote an exceptional article on vehicle combat for Bks 1 + 4 in White Dwarf magazine (43 I think, and I downloaded a PDF from Andy's site a couple of years ago...her we go: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/andyslack/pdf/ctrrr.pdf). Boiling down to essentially 3 paragraphs of simple rules you can memorise. The Across the Bright Face rules are neat, BUT I am not going to create hit location charts for the myriad craft in the Third Imperium. In keeping with the rules and the attitude, I need something generic.

S4 - I like your return to CT but I hope you are keeping an open mind about the rules as they stand. I played them from 1980 onwards for years, and houserules were necessary I can tell you. By houserules I mean, slight changes to the rules as written - at least to get the gritty kind of game I was after. I don't want to see you slowly turn into a CT evangelist! Someone who reads the LBBs as a Bible without deviation, interpretation or amendment...

One way (not THE way) to resolve this is how it is presented in Across the Bright Face. A damage table for an ATV is presented, not unlike starship combat. This table is meant for vehicle-to-vehicle combat. But, a rule is presented for small arms fire too.