By the way, Ty Beard's new combat system looks quite interesting as well:
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=17031
http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=17031
Which CT Combat System to Use?
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
Worse for realism? It is not possible by the rules? I don't think you know them so well, of course a scoped rifle is possible by the rules. The point is that you wrote how the GR breaks the curve, but it doesn't really, because the positive DM's are unrealized.
No, only two, on automatic.
I bought both AHL/Striker new, neither are role-playing systems, which LBB1 is and with Bk4 is very adaptable. However, if you like them it is fine, but don't misrepresent the LBB1/Bk4 system; from your statements, I feel you did not understand or use it correctly.
Rifle, yes. Carbine, yes. Autorifle, no. The rules (TTB) specifically mention rifles and carbines being able to accept scopes, but not automatic rifles.
For four-round bursts, this is correct. However: "Gauss rifles firing ten round bursts receive three chances of a hit on the designated target." - Mercenary, p.31f.
Your feeling is wrong. In any case: Please be so kind and refrain from assuming that my disagreement with you on this matter is rooted in ignorance. I would not have responded to your last post because as I said I don't see this discussion leading anywhere - but I really don't like the "you just don't understand it" routine, and so against my own better judgment I did respond after all. I still don't see any good reason to continue this particular sub-thread, and I don't think it serves the topic as a whole, so I'd suggest to drop this discussion. You have your opinion of the LBB1 system, and I have a different one.
Last edited:
It doesn't specify that auto and assault rifles can't have them, and in the real world they do.
I stand corrected, I don't use the GR on 10 round bursts so much as to save ammunition. Full auto on AK's and AR's is just a waste of bullets in my experience in real life.
I am a detail oriented person, some of your examples were not realistic, that is all. I understand you may not like the system, that is fine; I disagree that AHL or Striker are more realistic, one shouldn't be shot without it being a life changing experience.
Just a question from someone not trained in weapon use and whose knowledge about the matter is mostly theoretic.
In varios places, the GR is quoted as a primary sniper weapon (mostly at its appearence, as after that is use is more widespread. Are there many sniper weapons with automatic capability in today's RW?
Or we should assume at those TLs (12-13) where it is mostly a sniper weapon it has not automatic capability, and this capability appears latter (and may be retrofitted for those for TL 12-13) with its widespread use?
In varios places, the GR is quoted as a primary sniper weapon (mostly at its appearence, as after that is use is more widespread. Are there many sniper weapons with automatic capability in today's RW?
Or we should assume at those TLs (12-13) where it is mostly a sniper weapon it has not automatic capability, and this capability appears latter (and may be retrofitted for those for TL 12-13) with its widespread use?
There are a few, such as the AWC G2FA, but most are newish from the 1990's on. Technically there isn't a big difference between semi-auto and select fire or the 3 round burst (4 round in Traveller). Automatic fire is inherently less accurate, which Traveller represents poorly (and which could be said to be a technological development of the GR); it does so with scopes as well, saying you don't know if you knock it out of zero.
Generally, sniper rifles being long ranged weapons which are man-portable, do not benefit from automatic fire capability. Spraying bullets all around your target merely alerts them to take cover. The first round needs to hit and neutralize the target because the element of surprise is then lost, and wise allies take cover. (Although I did see a video from Iraq wherein the small unit which was being engaged by the US sniper did try, to the man, to get outta dodge. They were cut down well within the rifleman's accurate ROF even with the bolt action. On the other hand, their option was to remain grounded and pinned while the grenade launcher or light mortar took them under fire, so it's hard to say what was the wise course.)
In addition, the closed breech of a bolt-action type firearm allows for the round to be more safely chambered in larger calibers and with higher powder charges, giving the projectile itself a higher velocity, and therefor a flatter trajectory which is also less likely to be influenced by wind and other environmental factors. The more massive projectile itself also provides resistance from environmental benefits, as well as imparting a higher amount of KE on the target, making even extremity hits more likely to be lethal in nature.
As the GR is not a firearm, but a mini mass driver, the weapon has no recoil and super high muzzle velocities with very small projectiles. In that instance, a "full-auto" approach is very beneficial as the weapon can be maintained on target even at extreme ranges and delivering accurate fire through out. The small profile of the projectiles lends them to having small cross sections and that, with the extreme velocities, make them much less susceptible to environmental factors, much like the "flechette" and "discarding sabot" rounds of modern main tank guns use for the same reasons.
Last edited:
TY for your answers.
I guess this wouldn't be so clear with non chemically propulsed rounds (as the GR represent), so the fact of being automatic (not bolt-action) would not have this disadvantage (though, as both of you say, it would probably be used in single shoot when sniping).
I guess this wouldn't be so clear with non chemically propulsed rounds (as the GR represent), so the fact of being automatic (not bolt-action) would not have this disadvantage (though, as both of you say, it would probably be used in single shoot when sniping).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
If I read the gauss rifle has no recoil again I will scream - lots.
If something comes out one end, the other end moves in the opposite direction. What the gauss rifle does is accelerate the projectile for the entire length of the barrel so it has a low impulse - but to say it is recoilless is just plain wrong.
The same would be true for an electrically ignited binary propellant - you could stagger the propellant ignition along the length of the barrel to lessen the impulse, but there will still be recoil.
If something comes out one end, the other end moves in the opposite direction. What the gauss rifle does is accelerate the projectile for the entire length of the barrel so it has a low impulse - but to say it is recoilless is just plain wrong.
The same would be true for an electrically ignited binary propellant - you could stagger the propellant ignition along the length of the barrel to lessen the impulse, but there will still be recoil.
1) LBB1 is a very PLAYABLE system. It's nearly identical to Snapshot, save for the use of action points.
2) LBB1, Mayday & AHL have the same designer Marc Miller. Striker is Frank Chadwick. In the same way, Bk2 and Bk5-79 and Bk5-81 have the same designer... all Marc.
3) rules consistency across a game line was, for the most part, not a late 70's nor early 80's hangup; it is now, but wasn't then. Palladium and FASA really brought it to the fore. Hero, GDW, TSR, and Mayfair all used variants tailored to their settings, allowing choices by mixing core games of a given line. (Hero later jumped on the consistency bandwagon, shortly after GURPS was released.) TSR's Battlesystem was barely convertible from AD&D, let alone mechanically compatible nor result similar. AD&D had some rolls high, some low. TFG's SFB and Federation Space were not result-similar nor truly compatible; not even the direction you wanted on the dice were the same within SFB (Some rolls are high, some are low). Chaosium had multiple variants of the BRP basic mechanics, each tailored to the setting of that core book.
Wrong. The weapon will have at least half as much kick as a chemically propelled round throwing the same mass the same speed... as the same equal and opposite reaction generates the recoil. Why "at least half"? Blanks still kick... and up to half of the powder energy is lost after the bulet leaves the barrel, rather than transferred to the bullet. With certain short barreled designs, even more.
Nope. AHL was designed by "Frank Alan Chadwick and Marc W. Miller". Says so right in it. Look it up.
P.S.: I just can't help correcting false information, but I'm not otherwise continuing this discussion.
Yes, and Marc is the designer of Snapshot and Bk1. Same designer on all three.
Well, partially wrong. Since propellant weapons also generate recoil from the weight of the propellant, which as a gas being expelled still has mass, the force would be less in a coil gun. I read an estimate somewhere that put the figure at 30-40% less.
My oversight on the original statement.
As an aside, Aramis, you might want to take some of your moderator juice yourself. Just making the first statement in your post a blunt smack-down ("Wrong.") was one of the things you typically cite people for when issuing cautions for uncivil behavior. FWIW.
Please excuse the thread necromancy!
I've been rereading through CT again, and have come back possibly to using Striker in place of the CT combat system (not a new subject I know!)
I came across Aramis' interesting post (#5 in thread above):
I can't quite reconcile this with Striker though - in my 2nd ed Striker, the wound table starts at 4 for a light wound, 8 for a serious wound, and 12 for dead as opposed to the quoted values of 8, 12 and 16 above.
04 = 1D (Striker = 3D)
05 = 2D
06 = 3D
07 = 4D
08 = 5D (Striker = 6D)
09 = 6D
10 = 7D
11 = 8D
12 = 9D (Striker = Dead)
etc
This would seem to indicate 2d6+Pen-AV-3 = DiceDamage (rather than 2d6+Pen-AV-7). Am I missing something here?
Also, I was wondering about capping the damage for a weapon at the normal CT damage roll, i.e. a Rifle does 3D, so even if it rolls high enough vs no armour to do (say) 8D, it still only does 3D max. Has anyone tried this, I'm sure someone has! This would help alleviate the Penetration/Damage problem.
I've been rereading through CT again, and have come back possibly to using Striker in place of the CT combat system (not a new subject I know!)
I came across Aramis' interesting post (#5 in thread above):
I can't quite reconcile this with Striker though - in my 2nd ed Striker, the wound table starts at 4 for a light wound, 8 for a serious wound, and 12 for dead as opposed to the quoted values of 8, 12 and 16 above.
04 = 1D (Striker = 3D)
05 = 2D
06 = 3D
07 = 4D
08 = 5D (Striker = 6D)
09 = 6D
10 = 7D
11 = 8D
12 = 9D (Striker = Dead)
etc
This would seem to indicate 2d6+Pen-AV-3 = DiceDamage (rather than 2d6+Pen-AV-7). Am I missing something here?
Also, I was wondering about capping the damage for a weapon at the normal CT damage roll, i.e. a Rifle does 3D, so even if it rolls high enough vs no armour to do (say) 8D, it still only does 3D max. Has anyone tried this, I'm sure someone has! This would help alleviate the Penetration/Damage problem.
Can you expand on this? What's "X"? And am I missing something? "CT Damage Dice"?
Thanks
CT 2E (1981 and later printings of CT) uses whole dice only.
X is some correction factor - I'd need to think about where to set it, really, to match the effects of Striker's pen rolls - including an effect from the to-hit roll. X might even BE the margin from the to-hit roll.
So, for example the Body Pistol, a 2d weapon, would be (2d6+Pen-Av)*2.
tim_manley
SOC-12
rail guns don't have recoil in the classical sense.
https://www.utexas.edu/research/cem/IEEE/PR 52 Weldon Publications.pdf
tim_manley
SOC-12
When I used to play CT all the time (we're talking in the 1980's here) first thing I did was to give armor an AV that they subtracted from the damage rolled. Then armor had no role to play in getting hit and that chart was no longer used. I understand the abstract of "how easily is target injured based on weapon, armor, range, cover and concealment" and these modifiers reflect that in a war-game aspect. But in an RPG man-to-man combat system a lot of players had issues with it.
