Rub-a-dub-dub, more realism for your combat tub.

[tbeard1999]

Personally, I can't figure this.

Being a resident of the UK rather than Texas I can't try it out, :smirk: but I reckon that even with my Gun Combat-0, I could hit a guy at least once and probably two or three times with a six-shot revolver, if he were stealing my car from the end of my drive. I could probably wing at least one hit even if he were ducking and diving all over my lawn.

Of course, if he were firing back it might affect my accuracy - I don't suppose I could shoot very well over my shoulder doing 8mph hurdles over my garden fence!

Are these genuine stats or an urban myth that nobody bothers to check out?

They are genuine. The Gunfight at the OK Corral has been extensively studied and historians are largely in agreement over how it came down.

The difference, as you note, is that being shot at seriously degrades one's performance from shooting range and paintball norms. (Although paintball and laser tag-type games can improve battlefield performance to some degree).

As an aside, Wyatt Earp was extraordinarily cool-headed under fire. This is one reason he was so dangerous and probably highly correlated to the fact that he was never wounded.

 

[tbeard1999]

That's very interesting reading, especially the part that says, "...the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random — that is, accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired."

I wouldn't put too much stock in this sentence. Professional militaries, such as the US Army and Marine Corps spend a great deal of effort teaching soldiers how to shoot accurately and this makes a staggering difference on the battlefield. Journalists in Iraq say that they can always tell the Americans from the savages -- the Americans typically fire single shots, while the savages fire bursts. And as the kill ratio in such fighting is literally dozens to one, I'd say that aimed fire wins the day.

Nor is this anything new. Troops in the British Expeditionary Force in 1914 fired so accurately that the Germans thought they were lavishly armed with machineguns...

The difference is that poorly trained troops are probably better with burst weapons, while well-trained troops do better with aimed fire. Of course, some times even well trained troops use autofire.

 

[aramis]

Back in 1987, when i did BT, we had 5 different training regimes for riflery:
1) rote maintenance courses and weapon handling courses. No fire.
2) Shooting at still targets. Primarily to familiarize with the weapon and the noise of fire. The real wankers got cut here.
3) Shooting at popup targets at fixed ranges. We knew where the target was, just not exactly when.
4) Shooting at popup targets on random deploy; you have an idea of where the targets will be, but it's a huge area, and they randomly pop up at various ranges, and drop 2 seconds later. (This was the qualification course, as well.)
5) Miles-gear. Laser Tag with M16's.

There is a huge difference between shooting at a static target, and at one that you have to spot, aquire, and drop in 2 seconds.

It's not that much different when they are shooting at you, IF YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINED RIGHT.

As to adrenaline: some people don't get the shakes from it, and other don't even get it triggered in combat. The guy I cited was an ex-Army spec-ops troop. Completely nuts; to get him to have a major adrenaline reaction was hard, and dangerous for the trigger. (WHen charged by a grizzly bear, he calmly shot in front of it, throwing dirt into its face... it backed down.)

Still, 1 in 20 guys never fires in any given combat. (USMC, 2003)

 

[pendragonman]

Good point on the adrenaline trigger, aramis.

I don't get the rush until afterwards, when everyone else is calming down. Makes for clear headed crisis resolution but aukwardness afterward.

 

[tbeard1999]

It's not that much different when they are shooting at you, IF YOU HAVE BEEN TRAINED RIGHT.

It's absolutely true that realistic training can make a profound difference in combat effectiveness. This is the main reason that professional armies tend to do so well in combat compared to conscript armies or untrained rabble. Anyone who doubts this should review the accounts of small unit combat in Iraq. Professional Coalition soldiers routinely kill many times as many insurgents as they lose. And this is usually in urban combat, which has historically tended to overwhelmingly favor the defender. The tremendous disparity in kill ratios exist even if you eliminate enemy casualties killed by airstrikes and artillery.

However, I haven't found anything in my studies to support the idea that training (or by extension, combat experience) can effectively eliminate the effect of being shot at for real. The historical record shows no such phenomenon. For instance, the US Army did comprehensive studies after WWII and Korea and found that combat veterans reported being terrified in combat and that this did not decrease with additional exposure to combat. This came as a surprise, btw, as the army expected that repeated exposure to combat would make soldiers less "gun shy". The reverse seemed to happen after a point; soldiers began to lose effectiveness after a certain point.

My combat veteran friends and relatives (Korea; Vietnam) are unanimous that being shot at has a serious effect on one's behavior and accuracy in combat. (FYI--I had to study this topic extensively for my miniature wargame rules A Fistful of TOWs, which has the thesis that troop quality--primarily training--is the single most important factor on the battlefield).

Still, 1 in 20 guys never fires in any given combat. (USMC, 2003)

S.L.A. Marshall claimed that 3/4 of troops never fired their weapons in combat in WWII. This claim was hotly disputed by the troops (including relatives of mine, who I personally found highly credible) at the time. But curiously, the Army accepted his data and used it to justify adoption of the assault rifle. After Marshall's death a number of historians have questioned Marshall's claim and noted that he produced little verifiable evidence to back his claims up. My own review of his work produced deep skepticism. FWIW, I think that the Army accepted his claims because it allowed them to argue for a new, expensive weapon system that Congress might not have otherwise funded.

So I tend to be skeptical of such claims.

That said, I'd expect that the real ratio -- particularly among professional soldiers -- is closer to the number you quoted than to Marshall's numbers.

 

[castiglione]

Quick and easy rules to graft onto CT.

Give each weapon a "suppression value" dependent on range which is effectively a "to hit" penalty on the target. Weapons capable of putting out a lot of lead would have a high suppression value. Two guys shooting at each other would seriously degrade their ability to hit each other just due to the "pucker factor" of having the other fellow shooting back at you.

Sooo...

Six guys shooting at six guys who aren't shooting back...nothing changes from CT combat. Most likely outcome is that the six guys who aren't shooting back get gunned down and killed in a few turns.

Six guys shooting at six guys with comparable weapons shooting back...both sides might end up slinging a lot of lead at each other without accomplishing much and in the end, they'll have to use fire and movement to close and and flank to minimize the effectiveness of any cover/concealment used by the enemy and probably finish the fight at close range with grenades.

The suppression value also "models" suppressive fire. You might have little chance of hitting someone but just slinging lead at him will keep his head down enough to affect his accuracy shooting back either at you or at your friend who's running, in the open, trying to either flank him or make it to another piece of cover.

 

[castiglione]

I would modify the auto-fire rules in Traveller as well. The first few rounds out of the barrel are the only ones with a decent chance of hitting since recoil will adversely affect the other rounds. Of course, if your marksmanship is suspect to begin with, then firing off the entire magazine makes sense since your best chance of hitting someone is to just sling enough lead in his direction.

 

[castiglione]

This came as a surprise, btw, as the army expected that repeated exposure to combat would make soldiers less "gun shy". The reverse seemed to happen after a point; soldiers began to lose effectiveness after a certain point.

This is discussed in Paul Fussell's book Understanding Wartime Behavior. Based on US and British research, approximately 200 days of exposure to combat results in the soldier becoming ineffective. This is probably where the one year tour of duty used in Vietnam came from.

Fussell (who served in WWII in the ETO as a platoon commander and was wounded in action) mentions that the stress of being in combat is akin to the stress of being tortured and then points out that everyone (except for a few sickos who pay to get this treatment inflicted on them) eventually breaks under torture...yet people still cling to the idea of people getting used to combat.

 

[castiglione]

Fussell also mentions an anecdote of an infantry officer (I believe a major) who would ALWAYS shit his pants when taking fire for the first time in a battle but who was fine from that point on. It would always happen to him despite his experience. The story is related by a lieutenant who had just joined the man's unit and when the Germans started shooting at them, the lieutenant heard the major curse and he asked him if he had been hit. The man's response was that he had shit his pants.

 

[tbeard1999]

This is discussed in Paul Fussell's book Understanding Wartime Behavior. Based on US and British research, approximately 200 days of exposure to combat results in the soldier becoming ineffective. This is probably where the one year tour of duty used in Vietnam came from.

I've come across that 200 day figure before, but I didn't know where it came from. I'll read Fussell's book...thanks!

 

[tbeard1999]

Quick and easy rules to graft onto CT.

Give each weapon a "suppression value" dependent on range which is effectively a "to hit" penalty on the target.

FWIW, my Striker-derived combat rules allow for suppressive fire. Search this forum if you're interested.

 

[castiglione]

I've come across that 200 day figure before, but I didn't know where it came from. I'll read Fussell's book...thanks!

Fussell's book isn't the source of the ~200 figure. He merely brings it up in one of his chapters.

It's an interesting book, regardless. Covers everything you wanted to know about WWII but was afraid to ask...you know, stuff involving crapping your pants (due to fear and dysentery), buying sex from young boys, the many and varied meanings of the word "⌧", etc.

 

[castiglione]

FWIW, my Striker-derived combat rules allow for suppressive fire. Search this forum if you're interested.

What was the title of this thread...I did a search under suppressive fire and came up with a ton of threads.

 

[tbeard1999]

What was the title of this thread...I did a search under suppressive fire and came up with a ton of threads.

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=10755

I'd have posted the link, but I was in a hurry and couldn't do the search. The thread title is "Striker Combat System in CT Redux".

Note that turn sequencing has a profound effect on enabling suppressive fire. Because suppressive fire happens first (before movement), it's possible to replicate standard infantry tactics like "bounding overwatch". My players figured it out pretty well -- the shotgun armed guys suppress the targets, the others close in for the kill.

If you don't care for the Striker damage model, you can use my T4-adaptation damage model, which works pretty well. Basically, use the combat sequence above, but replace penetration and armor with the damage and armor rules from this post:

http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=14974

 

[Timerover51]

I recall reading in a book on the American Civil War that it had been calculated that on average, a man's weight in powder and shot had to be expended for each soldier hit on the battlefield. Now we all accept that accuracy was less with lower tech weapons, but it still correlates to your point about 8+ (41% hit rate) being unrealistically high.

I keep seeing this quoted, and I would dearly love to find the source. The average Southern infantryman at Gettysburg would have been carrying, at most, 60 rounds of ammunition, with limited possibility of resupply, except from captured ammunition, if of the correct caliber. The average Northern infantryman would have been carrying about 60 rounds, with resupply possible for probably another 60 rounds.

The .58 caliber Springfield rifle fired an expanding lead bullet weighing 500 grains, propelled by 60 grains of black powder. (Source, 1862 Ordnance Manual). There are 7000 grains in an English pounds. The combined weight of the lead and powder was 560 grains, so 12.5 rounds per pound, or 25 rounds for 2 pounds. The average Civil War soldier probably weighed maybe 140 pounds. Do the math. Twenty-five rounds per 2 pounds, so 25 X 70 (140 pounds divided by 2 pounds) gives you 1750 rounds to equal the weight of one soldier. If it took a man's weight in lead and powder to inflict a casualty, then there should have been one casualty from small arms fire per 30 infantry firing. Go look at the Gettysburg casualty list and tell me that with a straight face. Some of the casualties, especially during Picket's Charge, were caused by artillery fire, but the vast majority were caused by small arms.

Also, take a good look at the British casualties at Bunker Hill, which were over 1,000, with the Americans basically having no cannon, and using smoothbore muskets rather than rifles. Tell me that the Americans somehow had well over 100,000 pounds of ammunition to cause that many casualties.

Think quantitatively when someone makes that idiotic statement.

 

[kilemall]

Mmm, necrothread.....


Well, I have a bit of a problem correlating D&D damage to CT.


In D&D HP is measuring a combination of heroicness, ability to fight cinematically without a scratch, fate, favor of the gods/magic, and maybe energy/dodge in some sense, and only the last 5 points are actually weapon killing. The AC vs. weapon puts a little facts into it, except that either the weapon or the armor, or both, can be magically upped in to-hit/armor or effect. It's simulating heroic fantasy battle, not a medieval melee sim.


I view CT as being fundamentally different, there it is measuring effective damage, with both the range and the armor making the damage happen, or not. It's very either/or, and if you are on the wrong side of that, splat.


Don't forget that the damage is being done straight to the stats that affect the ability to wield the weapon, so STR takes down melee and DEX guns, with END loss leaving possibly just weakened -2 attacks possible.


So, VERY different systems.


I would agree that CT combat does have a system that intends to allow for wounding and to get out of the battle by knockout if nothing else. In it's own way, simulating scifi fictional combat I suppose.


As for realism, I already put out a variant of CT Striker that suits my needs. It allows for survival of an FGMP hit if it hits an arm or leg, or to be killed by a dagger to the skull. Skill and relative armor per body location vs. weapon counts to end up creating a 1D-7D range per hit, yet the averages work out very closely to their CT counterparts.


It's not everybody's cup of tea though, it does involve a couple of extra rolls to get that weapon's performance plus weapon skill/hit location element done.

 

[mike wightman]

What we say we want - realistic combat rules, John Doe vs John Doe.

What most groups actually mean - cinematic combat, John Wick vs John Wick.

What the vast majority of munchkins actually want - John Wick vs John Doe

IMHO the 8+ base throw represents an aimed shot by a shooter who is remaining calm and not moving.

If the shooter makes a hasty shot without aiming 12+ is the base throw. if the shooter is moving but aiming the base throw is 12+, if the shooter is moving and making a hasty shot make that a natural 12 to hit.

It has long time been my opinion that Traveller characters from the vast majority of careers are that rare breed that can remain calm under stressful combat conditions.

I have toyed with coolness under fire rules, morale rules for PCs and the like but the players usually dislike the lack of control of their character.

 

[coliver988]

...
What the vast majority of munchkins actually want - John Wick vs John Doe
...

In most games I play in or ref (and this goes for fantasy, SF, steampunk, all the genres), this is what the players seems to want: cartoon violence where they are undefeatable. Well, most of the time. To me that is boring - no consequences means no real game play.

That's why I like playing Traveller - you can get hurt or killed pretty easily. Same for the Fantasy Trip: no magical sleep will cure your damage!

And now back to the combat thread...

 

[whartung]

What the vast majority of munchkins actually want - John Wick vs John Doe

Han Solo vs Stormtroopers.

It's certainly more heroic to kick the door, toss in the grenade, spray the room with fire, and look inside to the the bad guys dead, and the hostages alive, well, and cowering in the corner.

After that, a round of back pats, high fives, and quips of dark humor are in order.

 

[kilemall]

I didn't really have a problem with Han Solo beating on stormtroopers, cause I had already heard they were clones and figured they had a QA problem. Fast forward to Young Kenobi finding the clone factory in the movie and it was clear corners were cut.


Hey, losing a Death Star and having to build another will put any Sith budget on nickels and dimes. The Republic was already cowed enough to not lift a finger to protect fellow worlds and clearly relieved a clone army was handy to avoid committing their own flesh and blood. Third rate thugs in armor probably looks like a safe bet when Star Destroyers are going to do the heavy hauling of the rebel stamping out work anyway and most of the worlds have no spine.