Gun Maker Issues

[David Johansen]

So I rolled up my first T5.09 character tonight.

Ag Ni
4A8776 - One term army, Mission, ANM, ANM, Mission.

Riding-1, Automobiles-1, Mechanic-4, Slug Throwers-1, Tracked-2, Artillery-2

Yes I made the roll to get in, no I didn't wait around to go through another round of Risk / Reward. Time to go back to fixing Tractors on Ilar V.

Anyhow, that lead me to print off the Gun Maker charts and build him a Standard Snub Assault Carbine -8, Range 4*2, Mass 0.96kg, Bullet-1 Blast-4 Bang -1

And I said to myself, "Self, that can't be right."

I didn't put this in errata because it just seems wrong but might be exactly what Marc wants. So here's my issue, "Assault" shouldn't have anything to do with explosive ammo. It should describe a smaller caliber automatic rifle than the Battle Rifle. This because there is also "Combat" does essentially the same thing only with "Frag" instead of "Blast".

Also, what is the "*" in the "Snub" range entry supposed to mean? "=" already does substitution, we've got multiplication symbols "x" in the Mass column. There's plus "+" signs in the TL column. So what does it "*" mean there? Is it an error? There's the same notation for Very Heavy's range.

I've read the text. I'd like to ask a question or suggest a clarification there too. It tells us how mass is multiplied and range is generally replaced or modified and TL is summed but it doesn't tell us anything about the effect accumulations. By the column headings one might argue that D1 and D2 and D3 don't total even if they're the same effect type. But does D2 total if it's different types? I think it's that effect types are cumulative but the book doesn't really say. Not right where it describes how every other weapon statistic is handled.

It occurs to me that Gun Maker might not have been completely updated yet which is yet another reason this isn't in the errata thread.

So, what's the common view of these issues?

 

[Timerover51]

So I rolled up my first T5.09 character tonight.

Ag Ni
4A8776 - One term army, Mission, ANM, ANM, Mission.

Riding-1, Automobiles-1, Mechanic-4, Slug Throwers-1, Tracked-2, Artillery-2

Yes I made the roll to get in, no I didn't wait around to go through another round of Risk / Reward. Time to go back to fixing Tractors on Ilar V.

Anyhow, that lead me to print off the Gun Maker charts and build him a Standard Snub Assault Carbine -8, Range 4*2, Mass 0.96kg, Bullet-1 Blast-4 Bang -1

And I said to myself, "Self, that can't be right."

I didn't put this in errata because it just seems wrong but might be exactly what Marc wants. So here's my issue, "Assault" shouldn't have anything to do with explosive ammo. It should describe a smaller caliber automatic rifle than the Battle Rifle. This because there is also "Combat" does essentially the same thing only with "Frag" instead of "Blast".

Also, what is the "*" in the "Snub" range entry supposed to mean? "=" already does substitution, we've got multiplication symbols "x" in the Mass column. There's plus "+" signs in the TL column. So what does it "*" mean there? Is it an error? There's the same notation for Very Heavy's range.

I've read the text. I'd like to ask a question or suggest a clarification there too. It tells us how mass is multiplied and range is generally replaced or modified and TL is summed but it doesn't tell us anything about the effect accumulations. By the column headings one might argue that D1 and D2 and D3 don't total even if they're the same effect type. But does D2 total if it's different types? I think it's that effect types are cumulative but the book doesn't really say. Not right where it describes how every other weapon statistic is handled.

It occurs to me that Gun Maker might not have been completely updated yet which is yet another reason this isn't in the errata thread.

So, what's the common view of these issues?

A couple of comments. Your weapons mass is 0.96 kilograms or 2.11 pounds.

A Colt M1911A1 .45 caliber automatic pistol weighs 2.44 pounds, has a 5.03 inch barrel and has a 7 round magazine. It fires a bullet weighing approximately 230 grains at a velocity of 830 feet per second in a 5 inch barrel and 920 feet per second in a 10.5 inch barrel. The 10.5 inch barrel was the one used in the classic Tommy Gun.

The World War 2 M1 Carbine weighed 5.2 pounds, had an 18 inch barrel and a 15 round magazine. It fires a .30 caliber bullet weighing 110 grains at a velocity of 1975 feet per second.

Based on mass, your weapon is a small caliber handgun, not a carbine, snub nose or whatever.

As for Range, I am assuming that a Range of 4 means a median range of 500 meters, with a variance of between 300 meters and 750 meters. Both of the above rounds will easily carry that far, just do not view that as your effective shooting range. Given that you are calling this a snub-nosed carbine, your effective range is probably about 100 to 150 meters, although given the mass, the cartridge would have to be on the order of the .22 Long Rifle. The AR-7 Explorer survival rifle weighed 1.13 kilograms, so a bit heavier than your weapon.

I will not comment comment on a bullet having a blast effect.

Note: I will not ever be using Gun Maker.

 

[Licheking]

I have always read the * as = since Snubs should be close in weapons.

The weight i would describe as an SMG which is what a carbine really equates too. Assuming good lightweight materials it could be the equivalent of the Micro Uzi or the Skorpion.

In all previous versions of Traveller you could load Snub pistols with a variety of ammunition including HE so having blast in your weapon effects isn't out of character for the universe.

Generally D1 is the base effect, then D2 and D3 are additional effects. If you are adding on from Descriptors they usually create D2 or D3 effects some of them though replace or give an effect, while the TL additions add to the D1.

The Beauty of the Makers is that they are abstract and you can describe what the numbers mean any way you wish to suit your universe, while the numbers allow you to plug it into the game without any hassle.

 

[Timerover51]

The weight i would describe as an SMG which is what a carbine really equates too.

Hmm, interesting. An SMG and a carbine are equivalent.

Snub pistol, per Mongoose.

Snub Pistol: These lightweight, low-recoil weapons were designed for use aboard spacecraft and in zero gravity

Low recoil, this implies low velocity or a very light projectile. Description gives it a 6 round magazine. The Japanese did develop a fuseless 12.7MM projectile in World War 2, but it was not light, and required a fairly high velocity to make if function. It is hard to visualize a fuse small enough to work in a snub pistol, and even harder to visualize an explosive projectile that small, given that you will need some form of fuse and a reasonably strong projectile body to handle the shock of being fired.

 

[whulorigan]

I didn't put this in errata because it just seems wrong but might be exactly what Marc wants. So here's my issue, "Assault" shouldn't have anything to do with explosive ammo. It should describe a smaller caliber automatic rifle than the Battle Rifle. This because there is also "Combat" does essentially the same thing only with "Frag" instead of "Blast".

According to the definitions on p. 208-209 (in T5.09):

Assault. The weapon is designed for use on the battlefield by soldiers. It is characterized by an ability to hit person - size targets at moderate ranges (Range 4 = 500 meters) and by bullets and explosive projectiles. For example, Assault Rifle.

Auto. An abbreviation for Automatic and another term for Battle (used about half the time). When a weapon is designated Battle by the tables or by design, Auto may be used instead. For example, a Battle Rifle may also be called an Auto Rifle.

Battle. The weapon is designed for use on the battlefield by soldiers. It is characterized by an ability to hit -person size targets at the limit of unaided vision (Range 5 = 1000 meters). For example, Battle Rifle.

Combat. The weapon is designed for use in combat by soldiers. It is characterized by an ability to hit person - size targets at relatively short ranges (Range 3 = 150 meters) using explosive projectiles. For example, Combat Rifle.
.
.
.
Snub. The weapon is specifically designed to be easy to carry and operate, but at a cost in range and effect.

If my general understanding of the evolution of rifles is correct, Battle-rifle would refer to the early truly militarized versions of rifles for use on the battlefield (bolt-action or semi-automatic, like the M1 Garand). They were initially not autofire, and had the long range because they were designed to be able to pick-off targets "single-shot" at range from a position of cover. The BAR is an example of an early "Auto" Battle Rifle (having the full-bore and range of a Battle Rifle, but with autofire capability).

As time progressed, it was realized that the type of fighting (and the way autofire weapons were used) had changed to closer range engagements that did not need the long range capability of the early Battle-Rifles, so lighter, shorter ranged versions of the Auto-battle-rifle were designed (like the AR15 / M16) which are categorized as Assault Rifles.

The Combat Rifle then represents a yet future development of the military rifle, employing (presumably) caseless/ETC or binary propellant (or similar) rounds for very high powered projectiles and high rates of fire (and also optionally utilizing discarding-sabot or explosive rounds).

That being said, I don't think the terms "auto-" and "battle-" should necessarily be synonymous (they should modify each other as appropriate). It may be acceptable to shorten "Auto-Battle-Rifle" to just "Auto-Rifle", but "Battle-Rifle" by itself should not necessarily imply autofire capability. And the assault designation should certainly not have anything to do with special ammunition, but rather just the range/weight descriptor.


As far as "snub" is concerned, Licheking and Timerover are right in pointing out that the term has always historically been used in Traveller to represent a weapon that has a very low muzzle-velocity (and hence very short range) that normally compensates for its low penetration/damage potential by using special ammunition (HE, HEAP, and/or gas, tranq, etc). Probably the text "The weapon is specifically designed to be easy to carry and operate..." should be altered to some type of verbiage for the descriptor implying " ... of low enough recoil to be suitable for use in a low-g or zero-g environment, and utilizing explosive or special types of ammunition." I think this is a glaring omission in the 'snub' descriptor - it is what made snub-weapons unique and interesting.


@David Johansen: I would bring this up on the T5.09 Errata Discussion Thread.

 

[David Johansen]

Gun maker can give some odd results to be sure.

Still, a snub gun is a large caliber, low velocity weapon that fires explosive projectiles, so it's possible that the whole thing is light weight plastic or graphite and the magazine capacity is fairly small. I'll have to weigh a NERF Recon or something for comparison.

 

[Timerover51]

Assault. The weapon is designed for use on the battlefield by soldiers. It is characterized by an ability to hit person - size targets at moderate ranges

(Range 4 = 500 meters)

and by bullets and explosive projectiles. For example, Assault Rifle.

Auto. An abbreviation for Automatic and another term for Battle (used about half the time). When a weapon is designated Battle by the tables or by design, Auto may be used instead. For example, a Battle Rifle may also be called an Auto Rifle.

Battle. The weapon is designed for use on the battlefield by soldiers. It is characterized by an ability to hit -person size targets at the limit of unaided vision

(Range 5 = 1000 meters)

. For example, Battle Rifle.

Combat. The weapon is designed for use in combat by soldiers. It is characterized by an ability to hit person - size targets at relatively short ranges

(Range 3 = 150 meters)

using explosive projectiles. For example, Combat Rifle.

Have any of you actually tried to hit something at 500 meters or 1000 meters with a rifle? Have any of you actually tried to spot a person at 500 or 1000 meters, without using a vision aides? Have any of you ever fired a full-power automatic weapon? By full power, I mean a full-power rifle cartridge, not the 5.56MM round of the M16. By the way, how many of you have tried to hit something at 250 meters with an M16?

The Battle Rifle is defined as an 8MM weapon. It is also capable of full automatic fire. The M-14 was a 7.62MM weapon, and initially was capable of selective fire. The problem was that the rifle could not be controlled in full automatic fire. You knew where the first round was going, but after that, look out. The old BAR (Browning Automatic Rifle) was about the lightest you could make an automatic rifle that could be controlled in automatic fire. The minimum weight for a full-power automatic weapon is about 20 pounds/9 kilograms.

The maximum effective range of the BAR, the M1 Garand, and the M1903 Springfield were all defined as 500 to 600 yards, and for the M1 and Springfield, that is really stretching it. More realistically, the effective range of any rifle is about 200 yards, assuming that the shooter is knowledgeable of his/her/its weapon, and has it properly sighted it. The same would hold true for a carbine, such as the M1 carbine from World War 2. A submachine gun has an effective range of 100 yards, while the Colt automatic is credited with an effective range of 50 yards. Having seen a fair number of people shoot the Colt, 10 yards is more like it.

One other thing to mention. Has anyone ever seen someone who is about 6 foot 4 inches try to shoot an M16, or someone shorter than 5 feet? Or a person with small hands try to fire a Colt automatic?

As for explosive rounds, see my earlier post.

 

[whulorigan]

Have any of you actually tried to hit something at 500 meters or 1000 meters with a rifle? Have any of you actually tried to spot a person at 500 or 1000 meters, without using a vision aides? Have any of you ever fired a full-power automatic weapon? By full power, I mean a full-power rifle cartridge, not the 5.56MM round of the M16. By the way, how many of you have tried to hit something at 250 meters with an M16?.
.
.
.
The maximum effective range of the BAR, the M1 Garand, and the M1903 Springfield were all defined as 500 to 600 yards, and for the M1 and Springfield, that is really stretching it. More realistically, the effective range of any rifle is about 200 yards, assuming that the shooter is knowledgeable of his/her/its weapon, and has it properly sighted it. The same would hold true for a carbine, such as the M1 carbine from World War 2. A submachine gun has an effective range of 100 yards, while the Colt automatic is credited with an effective range of 50 yards. Having seen a fair number of people shoot the Colt, 10 yards is more like it..

So your suggestion for Errata would be:

Battle: Range = 4 (500 meters)
Assault: Range = 3 (150 meters)
Combat: Range = 3 (150 meters) & explosive rounds propelled by ETC or BP

As for explosive rounds, see my earlier post.

I believe earlier versions of Traveller made the HE/HEAP snub-rounds 12mm. Would this still be too small (presuming advanced chemicals/materials of a higher TL), or would larger be more believable, even at TL10, for example?

Electrochemical Chemical (ETC) and Binary Propellant (BP) are projected to create much higher muzzle velocities by reacting over a longer period within the barrel (creating an expanding plasma) instead of a single initial "pressure-spike" that exponentially falls off afterward as the bullet moves down the barrel.

 

[David Johansen]

If you just aim it up at a 45 degree angle, A pistol round can travel a mile, (we have a persistent problem with stray bullets from the shooting range being found in an outlying neighbourhood here in Lethbridge) it's a question of hitting anything. Which becomes increasingly difficult.

That range 5 bullet is a 5d6 roll under stat +skill that averages around 10. Aiming gets it down to 4d. So it's not easy.

But I do feel that the range bands are a bit too vague at times. Range 5 is from 500 to 1000m.

One problem rpgs often run into is people's experience on the shooting range verses the statistical realities of accuracy in combat.

Incidentally given the actual values of skills in T5 I'd probably bump all the difficulties by at least one die and maybe two. I know Traveller fans have a special place in their hearts for 2d6 but when average skill + stat is a 10 and a good skill + stat is 16 I just feel an extra die would be in order. On the other hand there is the argument that a professional shouldn't fail at average tasks in controlled circumstances. But then, that's what the cautious / aiming -1d represents anyhow.

 

[Epee]

I find two large problems with Gun Maker and Personal Combat as they stand.

One is the use of weapon descriptors as ammo descriptors. The reason for this is that, once you have a gun, different tech levels, and even the same tech level can design various types of ammunition for weapons to fire. Depending on the tech level, not all ammo types, HEAP for instance, are availible or practical but, as technology advances, almost all become feasible. Their is little reason why, once small arms explosive rounds become available, you could not build explosive pistol ammo; granted a large caliber will fire more explosives and very small calibers may not fire enough explosive compound to be useful.

The other problem I have is that the difficulty of the task, getting a hit, is based on visual range rather than ballistic range. For example, hitting a non-moving, non-concealed, human-sized target at 200 meters with a "cautious" shot; well sighted and rested, is of such little difficulty as to be routine for a trained rifleman with a modern rifle. However, making that same shot with a 19th century rifled-musket is far more difficult unless the range is correctly estimated and all but impossible with an 18th century military musket. The chief advance in firearms over the last half-milenia, besides the rate of fire is in the elimination of the shooter's need to precisely estimate the range to the target. This is affected by other variables of course, the size of the target, the precision of the projectile's path, but most importantly it is affected by the velocity of the projectile and its ability to sustain that velocity as it travels through the air.

If I were designing the system I'd base the number of dice on a "ballistic increment" of meters that reflects a fraction of of the maximum range of the weapon. For weapons with open or "iron" sights this maximum would be the range at which the projectile drops 1 meter below the line of sight; meaning the shooter would have to aim above the head of a standing target and thus obscure the target behind the sights. Telescopic sights would double this increment and sights calibrated and adjustable for range, like military or target sights, would triple this number. A multiple modifier would be applied due to the weapon type; rifle, carbine, shotgun, pistol, to reflect their precision and accuracy in directing the projectiles path.

 

[David Johansen]

I expect you could model alternate munitions much like CT did the Auto Rifle firing semi-automatic: just use the rifle stats.

Another thought I had was that a battle carbine is essentially the equivalent of a real world assault rifle. Though the M-16 and AR-15 might want to take that up with me.

Even so, the system paints with broad strokes and is an attempt to provide a wide range of weapons without resorting to Fire Fusion and Steel type design sequences

The makers actually strike me as a thematically better match for Traveller than FF&S. As much as I liked the GDW House System I've always thought it was a mistake to tie it to Traveller.

 

[Licheking]

Have any of you actually tried to hit something at 500 meters or 1000 meters with a rifle? Have any of you actually tried to spot a person at 500 or 1000 meters, without using a vision aides? Have any of you ever fired a full-power automatic weapon? By full power, I mean a full-power rifle cartridge, not the 5.56MM round of the M16. By the way, how many of you have tried to hit something at 250 meters with an M16?

Yes i have fired a rifle (SMLE) and i have fired an assault rifle (L95A1) and a battle rifle (L1A1) in all their modes. I'm actually a good shot so i'm told and the gun club i belonged to was hoping to enter me into competition until the backlash against firearms happened here in the UK and my club moved.

The problem is your trying to fix real world hard numbers to an abstract system with loads of leeway for description and colour. It doesn't work, if you want that you need another system. However you can happily describe your assault rifle built with GunMaker as 5.56mm and it would work as such within the confines of T5. You could use the same stats reroll the QREBS ratings and then call it a 6mm Assault rifle without needing to design another weapon from the ground up, now you have 2 weapons with only one lot of work.

I loved FF&S and Guns, Guns, Guns which make very detailed highly accurate with known world physics weapons. But they wouldn't be appropriate to T5 since its always been about the exploration, plot and characters and not necessarily the detail of the weapons, which like in all great Sci-Fi are little more than props to drive the story along and provide some action and drama. I don't think at any time i ever heard Luke or Han talk about the output of their various weapons.

 

[Timerover51]

Yes i have fired a rifle (SMLE) and i have fired an assault rifle (L95A1) and a battle rifle (L1A1) in all their modes. I'm actually a good shot so i'm told and the gun club i belonged to was hoping to enter me into competition until the backlash against firearms happened here in the UK and my club moved.

The problem is your trying to fix real world hard numbers to an abstract system with loads of leeway for description and colour. It doesn't work, if you want that you need another system. However you can happily describe your assault rifle built with GunMaker as 5.56mm and it would work as such within the confines of T5. You could use the same stats reroll the QREBS ratings and then call it a 6mm Assault rifle without needing to design another weapon from the ground up, now you have 2 weapons with only one lot of work.

I loved FF&S and Guns, Guns, Guns which make very detailed highly accurate with known world physics weapons. But they wouldn't be appropriate to T5 since its always been about the exploration, plot and characters and not necessarily the detail of the weapons, which like in all great Sci-Fi are little more than props to drive the story along and provide some action and drama. I don't think at any time i ever heard Luke or Han talk about the output of their various weapons.

I plan on simply ignoring the whole mess, as I do not use the Traveller combat system anyway, and in my Traveller Universe, there are no man-portable energy weapons, and not a lot of ship-based ones. I have a standard weapons set, and if a player really, really wants to try to design their own weapon, I figure on hitting them with a 100,000 Credit up front development charge, and about 6 to 12 months passage of real time before the player knows if the thing works at all. If he/she/it goes with a custom cartridge, cost goes up another 100,000 Credits, and ammo runs 10 Credits per round, with a minimum purchase of 1,000 rounds. If the player still wants to go on, I will suggest that they find another GM.

I look at Gun Maker as one of the areas in the rules that could be jettisoned with no loss whatsoever.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Ah, how soon they forget.

Yes i have fired a rifle (SMLE) and i have fired an assault rifle (L95A1) and a battle rifle (L1A1) in all their modes. I'm actually a good shot so i'm told and the gun club i belonged to was hoping to enter me into competition until the backlash against firearms happened here in the UK and my club moved.

The problem is your trying to fix real world hard numbers to an abstract system with loads of leeway for description and colour. It doesn't work, if you want that you need another system. However you can happily describe your assault rifle built with GunMaker as 5.56mm and it would work as such within the confines of T5. You could use the same stats reroll the QREBS ratings and then call it a 6mm Assault rifle without needing to design another weapon from the ground up, now you have 2 weapons with only one lot of work.

I loved FF&S and Guns, Guns, Guns which make very detailed highly accurate with known world physics weapons. But they wouldn't be appropriate to T5 since its always been about the exploration, plot and characters and not necessarily the detail of the weapons, which like in all great Sci-Fi are little more than props to drive the story along and provide some action and drama. I don't think at any time i ever heard Luke or Han talk about the output of their various weapons.

"...not as clumsy or random as a blaster, an elegant weapon of a more civilized time." sounds like talking about output of weapons. :devil:

But in all seriousness, very well stated and quite spot on. Bravo.

 

[Epee]

Not everyone wants a campaign that involves constant fighting like a D&D dungeon crawl and that is perfectly understandable and quite alright in my book. Likewise, even those who want to know the width scar the bullet that grazed their cheek just under their left eye makes generally don't want to roll piles of dice multiple times for each bullet. But, we are role playing here and so the desire is to present something more detailed than "each roll a die and high roller dies".

I think Mark's system takes an admirable stab at a happy role-playing balance and, lets face it, ever since CT circa 1977, Mark has presented a quick, only scratch-paper need, means of resolving combat. Snapshot was the first presentation of detailed, move-by-move, Traveller combat and I think something like it is perfectly valid for player situations that desire more role-playing than a quick, one-and-done, from the random encounter table.

 

[Timerover51]

Not everyone wants a campaign that involves constant fighting like a D&D dungeon crawl and that is perfectly understandable and quite alright in my book. Likewise, even those who want to know the width scar the bullet that grazed their cheek just under their left eye makes generally don't want to roll piles of dice multiple times for each bullet. But, we are role playing here and so the desire is to present something more detailed than "each roll a die and high roller dies".

I think Mark's system takes an admirable stab at a happy role-playing balance and, lets face it, ever since CT circa 1977, Mark has presented a quick, only scratch-paper need, means of resolving combat. Snapshot was the first presentation of detailed, move-by-move, Traveller combat and I think something like it is perfectly valid for player situations that desire more role-playing than a quick, one-and-done, from the random encounter table.

I use a single percentile roll combat system that accounts for both hand weapons, missile weapons, and firearms, to include wound location and expertise modifiers. I view the Traveller combat system as quite cumbersome and very limited.

 

[robject]

I use a single percentile roll combat system that accounts for both hand weapons, missile weapons, and firearms, to include wound location and expertise modifiers. I view the Traveller combat system as quite cumbersome and very limited.

Percentiles are handy: reverse the digits for hit location. Very handy.

 

[Timerover51]

Percentiles are handy: reverse the digits for hit location. Very handy.

The system that I use has a table, so no reversed digits, and also takes into account cover from missile fire. If the die roll shows a hit on a body area which is protected by cover (meaning that there is protection from fire as well as concealment), such as an individual who is behind a sandbag wall, it has no effect. So if the roll indicates a hit on a man's left leg, and his leg is protected by the sandbags, the hit is ruled as "no effect".

 

[David Johansen]

HARP SF?

 

[Timerover51]

HARP SF?

Was that addressed to me as a question as to the rule system used?