MGT Only: Weapons Playtest for Traveller

[whulorigan]

It seems to me (from a purely gaming perspective) that it is better to design the system with a (not too complex) level of granularity, as that is the approach that requires more thought on the part of rules-developers. I'd rather have the effort put into a more specialized system that works decently, since that takes more effort and/or play-testing to do well.

The minimalist approach described by others up-thread is easy enough for anyone to house-rule, if that suits their play style better, and frankly doesn't really require the efforts of a game-designer or play-tester to work through.

(As a side note, based on the various opinion camps in this thread, it seems that there is an implicit/sub-conscious argument being made for some form of the CT/MT skill 'Combat Rifleman".)

 

[MongooseMatt]

The minimalist approach described by others up-thread is easy enough for anyone to house-rule, if that suits their play style better, and frankly doesn't really require the efforts of a game-designer or play-tester to work through.

In my experience, the opposite is true. When players design rules (and, to be fair, an awful lot of games designers fall into this trap too, including Yours Truly) there is a tendency to overcomplicate and overwrite.

It sometimes takes a games designer to whittle things down to their necessities and get rid of the guff!

 

[mike wightman]

Google the following and read a few of the entries:

handgun shooting stances

rifle shooting stances

automatic weapon shooting stances.

You could probably get away with:

TL specific ranged weapon skill :devil:

 

[MongooseMatt]

Perhaps you could go with the more granular approach that uses both energy/slug distinction and the long/shortarm distinctions (as I and some others have discussed in this thread), but have the minimalist skill-set detailed in a sidebar as an "Optional Rule" for those who prefer that approach.

Do you know, that is _exactly_ what I decided to do, but in reverse - use a blanket energy/slug or short/long (still vasillating between them), and then have the sidebar introducing the other, along with the reasons why it could be considered.

Seems to give the best of both worlds - simplicity for those who want it, and the four major distinctions for those who want more detail.

 

[McPerth]

(As a side note, based on the various opinion camps in this thread, it seems that there is an implicit/sub-conscious argument being made for some form of the CT/MT skill 'Combat Rifleman".)

In fact, this was (IMHO) a nice example of giving advantage to military careers in this matter (something I see as desirable), as it was only in Mercenary characters (CT and MT errata). I understand this as the different training advantage an ex-military can have over a civilian, no matter how much the civilian likes to train.

 

[mike wightman]

And it's totally unrealistic. Most of the world's best shooters are civilians with no military training at all.

The military trains you battlefield survival, small unit tactics, calm under fire - oh and a bit of shooting.

A civilian can be trained in the shooting part - the battlefield survival skills are another matter entirely.

 

[Vladika]

And it's totally unrealistic. Most of the world's best shooters are civilians with no military training at all.

The military trains you battlefield survival, small unit tactics, calm under fire - oh and a bit of shooting.

A civilian can be trained in the shooting part - the battlefield survival skills are another matter entirely.

BINGO! But, good luck getting that most accurate truth across.

 

[McPerth]

And it's totally unrealistic. Most of the world's best shooters are civilians with no military training at all.

The military trains you battlefield survival, small unit tactics, calm under fire - oh and a bit of shooting.

A civilian can be trained in the shooting part - the battlefield survival skills are another matter entirely.

But are those civilians trained in a full range of weapons as Cbt Rifleman means in CT/MT (and as I guess well trained soldiers are)?

I don't mean that a civilian cannot be better shooter tan a military man, just that it will have more problems in being trained in a wide range of weapons.

 

[mike wightman]

It's a matter of what's available to the civilian gun club. Most armed forces train you on a limited number of weapons, the ones they equip you with. if you are lucky you may get trained on the weapons your opponents are likely to use.

A civilian gun club in the USA could have access to dozens if not a hundred different weapons.

 

[SpaceBadger]

Most armed forces train you on a limited number of weapons, the ones they equip you with. if you are lucky you may get trained on the weapons your opponents are likely to use.

As a recent example, my son Cody completed US Army Basic Training last summer, being prepped for a technical MOS (I understand Basic is now different depending on what MOS the soldier is headed into; for example, Infantry Basic and AIT are combined into one course). In Basic he was trained in marksmanship with the M-16 rifle, Beretta pistol, M-60 LMG, and two different kinds of SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon), plus proper use of hand grenades. Then he went to AIT for training as a 13-Romeo Field Artillery Firefinder Radar Operator, and in addition to training on his radar and communications equipment, was also trained as a truck driver, Humvee driver, and gunner for the .50 cal machineguns that their truck and Humvee are armed with; the idea being that every man in their team should be able to fulfill any role in the team.

 

[aramis]

But are those civilians trained in a full range of weapons as Cbt Rifleman means in CT/MT (and as I guess well trained soldiers are)?

I don't mean that a civilian cannot be better shooter tan a military man, just that it will have more problems in being trained in a wide range of weapons.

The guy I met with the most experience on a .50cal MG isn't military, and NEVER HAS BEEN. He's a guy who shoots for fun, and takes his .50cal to the range, last I ran into him, weekly. And yes, he's got a fully functional .50 BMG. He also owns a Vicars. He can casually shoot soda cans at half a mile.

The real ironies of life: Most police officers (who in the US almost universally carry a sidearm) spend less time training on it than the average high school age competitive shooter does on their primary weapon. The police hit rates are only marginally better than the criminals they pursue. And they spend more time training on their weapons than do the average US or UK soldier outside the combat arms.

An IPSC shooter in a police course usually scores pretty well on the accuracy, but often fails on the identification of threats portion; police don't train nearly as much for accuracy as for not-shooting the non-threat.