The Riddle of Steel, SMG's and lasers

[Mike Holmes]

SMGs should do exactly the same damage as pistols. Seeing as they use the same ammo, and have similar barrel lengths.

There should be two MGs, light and heavy. Heavy is not really a man portable weapon (more like a squad weapon). Many LMGs come belt fed with belts of 100 rnds. Same for HMGs actually. Belts can be linked together for a positional defense.

The Hand Cannon is fictitious, so you can do what you like. But all handguns are made for non-combat sorts of operations (officers only carry them because they can't be bothered to carry a full-length weapon). That said, they are designed with that sort of operation in mind. Which means from 5 to 15 rounds. Even the fifteen round Barretta is seen as a bit excessive inmany cases. That all said, there are weird handguns designed with clips that carry thirty or more rounds. What's your Hand Cannon for?

Miniguns (ridiculous weapons that can fire 100 rnds in one second) are sorta man portable, but nobody except movie directors think of them this way. Link as many 100 rnd belts together as you can carry. Because you're going to be out of ammo before you know it.

You can't carry and fire a 20 MM vulcan autocannon.

Mike

[Valamir]

The closest realistic thing to a "hand cannon" would be a bazooka or a under barrel grenade launcher.

As for the lethality of fire arms and people thinking their supposed to fall down...there a great scene in U571 (otherwise a fairly mediocre movie) where an escape prisoner shoots a crew man whose coming at him.  The crewman stops cold...gets this puzzled look on his face as if to say...wait a minute...that wasn't all that bad...and proceeds to go after the prisoner anyway.

[Thirsty Viking]

Very good posts mike,  i will respond to a few points in the other one in a second.

All I said was that the M16 is as lethal or worse than most handguns.

I agree with this, I tried to clarify earlier that I meant military pistols like a .45. Unless things have changed the army doesn't typically go to battle with a .22 pistol

That is (and nobody believes me when I say this) that people experince the same impact when they are hit by a bullet as the firer does from the recoil. Exactly the same, actually (see Newton, Isaac).

This is largely true, however rifles disperse this impact across a larger surface area (the but of the rifle) and to a degree over time (recoil springs, and  Also the bolt action in a semi-automatic).  These reduce the sensation of the impact.  I have seen novices knocked on thier but when firing weapons because the weren't balance for it.

Oh a quick addition...  the impact of the rifle is also slowed for the weight of the rifle.  that gentle (or not so gentle) shug of an old heavey ww1 rifle is an awesome amount of momentum in the bullet.

[Brian Leybourne]

a great scene in U571 (otherwise a fairly mediocre movie)

cough-cough-once-more-the-yanks-take-credit-for-something-the-brits-did-might-as-well-have-been-a-Mel-Gibson-film-cough

Brian.

[Thirsty Viking]

sorry to post this in sections but the Gurps analysis is very long.

I still believe that the M16's reliability is mostly a matter of Army propaganda.  ... Anyhow, that all said, it's not an unusable weapon by any means.

I agree, and yes I too fired one of the last groups through an AK 47 that had 1500 students fire a clip each through it that summer,  plus the clips fired by the instructors.  They guaranteed us that it hadn't been cleaned all summer and that they didn't know if it ever had been.  In all my weapons familiarization course it was the only one i ever had an instructor say... "if you have to use it, don't worry about maintenance it will not need it".  It was far more likely that I would one day need to use an AK 47 for an extended periode of time than an M-60 but thats what I was told. So It made an impression.

Also, comparing the M16 load to a pistol load does not hold up. Yes, it's a .223 or 4.45 MM round (to be precise). But it's hardly rimfire ammo. The load is much larger. Also, longer barrel length translates to higher veolocity. IOW, the round that comes out of an M16 is much more dangerous than all but the largest pistol rounds.

I agree, I was commenting on the pistols that would be carried by high end military of an X-Comm campaign.  (I Loved the computer Game) not the average saturnay night special.

[Thirsty Viking]

That all said, any 7.62 round is going to beat it hands down for damage. These are all similar to or larger than the 30-06 rounds hunters commonly use for deer hunting. And they are very effective.

I qualified expert on most occasions, but when I missed, I missed the far targets as one would expect. I'd get it to about a 10TN or so at that far

the difference between a 10 and 12 on 1 die  is 10% and 9% success. If you are prone or supported by sandbages,  this either adds dice or could be ruled to lower TN.  between 10 and 20 the effect of raising target nuymbers is much smaller than from 2-10 on 1d.  Also 10 to 11 has no effect at all.

target. Here's an important consideration. Notice how in ranging the targets the intervals in between tend to increase? That's because ffom a human perspective, things need to double or halve in perceptibility to have an affect on our ability to sense them. See the GRUPS range/size/movement table.

A couple things here gurps uses a 3d6. here are ~TN equivalents for 1d10
I have used 2 ranges 4d10 and 8d10 ...(I think 4d10 represents firing each round, and 8d10 every other rd(firing range)) to show how modifying a TN in GURPS varies from RoS   %'s are for 1 success and the equivalent MODIFIED GURPS target #

Code Select Expand


RoS TN 1d10 8d10 Gurps 4d10 Gurps
02 90.00% 99.99%    99.99%
03 80.00% 99.99%    99.84%
04 70.00% 99.99%    99.19%
05 60.00% 99.93%    97.44% 16
06 50.00% 99.61%    93.75% 15
07 40.00% 98.32% 16  87.04% 12-14
08 30.00% 94.24% 15  75.99% 12
09 20.00% 83.22% 12-14  59.04% 10-11
10 10.00% 56.95% 11  34.39% 9
11 10.00% 56.95%   34.39%
12 09.00% 52.97% 10  31.43%
13 08.00% 48.68%    28.36%
14 07.00% 44.04%    25.19% 8
15 06.00% 39.04% 09  21.93%
16 05.00% 33.66%    18.55%
17 04.00% 27.86% 08  15.07% 7
18 03.00% 21.63% 07  11.47%
19 02.00% 14.92%    07.76% 6
20 01.00% 07.73% 06  03.94% 5
21 01.00% 07.73%    03.94%
22 00.90% 06.98%    03.55%
23 00.80% 06.22%    03.16%
24 00.70% 05.46%    02.77%
25 00.60% 04.70% 05  02.38%
26 00.50% 03.93%    01.99%
27 00.40% 03.16%    01.59% 4
28 00.30% 02.37%    01.19%
29 00.20% 01.59% 04  00.80%
30 00.10% 00.80%    00.40% 3
31 00.10% 00.80%    00.40%
32 00.09% 00.72%    00.36%
33 00.08% 00.64%    00.32%
34 00.07% 00.56%    00.28%
35 00.06% 00.48% 03  00.24%
36 00.05% 00.40%    00.20%
37 00.04% 00.32%    00.16%
38 00.03% 00.24%    00.12%


The reason I argue straight line modifiers is that the shot that is off 3 inches at 50 meters is off by 18 inches at 300 meters on the same trajectory.

Also gurps uses a modifier of 2 for doubling the distance, If you check thier charts they modify by 1 for roughly every 50%  and thier scale is different see above.  At points modifying the TN by 1 is a huge increase

For muscle powered weapons, the problem is oomph, and so linear progression will work for them.

Actually it doesn't -  all missle weapons operate at the same str across thier range in our system...  so umph is technically equally maximized in an attempt to kill ....  best examples crossbow and handaxe...

But for firearms and energy weapons especially, drop is not nearly the problem.  

This is handled by the size of the increment  In gurps the increments are the same and all ranged weapons are given an accuracy modifier.  1/2 damage ranges and maximum ranges.  This isn't  a bad system..  but it isn't our system..  at least not at this time.  Interestingly enough, the effect of aiming for a sec has a very similar effect in terms of success at hitting an identical target.

So instead of calculating a penalty for every increment of so many yards, it should be at the doubling of a certain increment. So if we choose 25 meters as PB for a M16, then:

50 meters  TN+1
100 meters TN+2
200 meters TN+3
400 meters TN+4
800 meters TN+5

I might even go to 20 meters base. Given the above, I'd go with a TN 6 base for the M16. That means that a guy with CP 10 will still miss the 400 meter target 35% of the time.

While I like your philosophy of modifiers for SPOTTING things, I find AIMING things to be a different matter entirely.  A Scope addresses much of this,  assuming you have the correct range dialed in to compensate for the drop.  and the propper windage set...  sure at 50 meters these matter little, at 500 they add up on a balistic weapon.  I'd give TN reductions for a scope...  and better more for use of a laser range finder with the scope (or pehaps the same with bonus dice)  this ensures a close estimate of distance.  All assume a weapon zeroed in for the user of course.

Are there penalties for moving targets in TROS? There ought to be; it makes as much difference as range.

Your right, but if you check the way gurps handles it,  speed is inversly related to distance.  the speed is added to the distance, and that number is checked...  the effect is that a running man at 500 yards is the same target # as a sitting man.

Interestigly, for single shots, the laser isn't going to be much better. Again, the limitation is human perception. Any of these weapons can mount a scope which will reduce the range penalty effectively, but increase movent penalties, interestingly.

Gurps would disagree with you here, they double the range of the M16 for the same penalty.  I assume this is because no recoil, no drop, no effect from wind.

[Mokkurkalfe]

SMGs should do exactly the same damage as pistols. Seeing as they use the same ammo, and have similar barrel lengths.

There should be two MGs, light and heavy. Heavy is not really a man portable weapon (more like a squad weapon). Many LMGs come belt fed with belts of 100 rnds. Same for HMGs actually. Belts can be linked together for a positional defense.

The Hand Cannon is fictitious, so you can do what you like. But all handguns are made for non-combat sorts of operations (officers only carry them because they can't be bothered to carry a full-length weapon). That said, they are designed with that sort of operation in mind. Which means from 5 to 15 rounds. Even the fifteen round Barretta is seen as a bit excessive inmany cases. That all said, there are weird handguns designed with clips that carry thirty or more rounds. What's your Hand Cannon for?

Miniguns (ridiculous weapons that can fire 100 rnds in one second) are sorta man portable, but nobody except movie directors think of them this way. Link as many 100 rnd belts together as you can carry. Because you're going to be out of ammo before you know it.

You can't carry and fire a 20 MM vulcan autocannon.

Mike

Right. Have changed pistol damage to 4, same as a SMG.
Pistols will, as you say, be used by officers and as sidearms for guys with bigger stuff. SMG's are there more for security teams and similar NPC's.

In the game, you use the Hand Cannon when smaller bullets just bounce.
My guess is that it's a semiautomatic grenade machinegun. It is, as you say, a made up weapon, but will here be used as a weapon against organic beings with a tank-like carapace. It may either fire explosive rounds or solid slugs.

Miniguns(a la Predator) are there because I like them. It will probably only be for helicopter support, base defence and similar things, although a clever PC might find some use for a crasched helicopter's gun...

[Mike Holmes]

the difference between a 10 and 12 on 1 die  is 10% and 9% success. If you are prone or supported by sandbages,  this either adds dice or could be ruled to lower TN.  between 10 and 20 the effect of raising target nuymbers is much smaller than from 2-10 on 1d.  

Yep, I'm mostly agreeing with your asessment here. My TN10 was more or less a compromise between your assessment, and that of the others here that seemed to work statistically.

The reason I argue straight line modifiers is that the shot that is off 3 inches at 50 meters is off by 18 inches at 300 meters on the same trajectory.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with aim. The difficulty of placing a weapon on target like most things in nature is on a logarithmic curve. This is recognized by most games, and is pretty well verified by any number of sources.

Also gurps uses a modifier of 2 for doubling the distance, If you check thier charts they modify by 1 for roughly every 50%  and thier scale is different see above.  At points modifying the TN by 1 is a huge increase

Yes. This is why I was only using a +1 instead of the GURPS +2. If you think that this makes it too easy or to hard, the solution is to change the base range to account.

For muscle powered weapons, the problem is oomph, and so linear progression will work for them.

Actually it doesn't -  all missle weapons operate at the same str across thier range in our system...  so umph is technically equally maximized in an attempt to kill ....  best examples crossbow and handaxe...

I'm not talking about damage. I'm talking about realism. Waht I think is that Jake went with linear intervals for muscle powered weapons because of the increased vagaries of such short ranged projectiles. The ballistics come much more into play. So for those, I would go with the linear method as Jake prescribes. But for firearms which have ranges that are much longer than the perception limits of human firers, the ballistic problems are negated more, and the perception based method starts to make more sense again (to be really accurate, you would have a slight difference between lasers and firearms to account for drop at long ranges, but...).

But for firearms and energy weapons especially, drop is not nearly the problem.  

This is handled by the size of the increment

Agreed.

In gurps the increments are the same and all ranged weapons are given an accuracy modifier.  1/2 damage ranges and maximum ranges.  This isn't  a bad system..  but it isn't our system..  at least not at this time.

Well, yes, I'm suggesting changes to the system. As it stands firearms are not "our system". So I feel no need to be bound to the rules exactly.

Your right, but if you check the way gurps handles it,  speed is inversly related to distance.  the speed is added to the distance, and that number is checked...  the effect is that a running man at 500 yards is the same target # as a sitting man.

This is the same point I've been making all along (and therefore agree with GURPS). At a distance, the speed is effectively less damaging to your ability to hit. It's that natural log curve.

Gurps would disagree with you here, they double the range of the M16 for the same penalty.  I assume this is because no recoil, no drop, no effect from wind.

We're not disagreeing. My point is that they don't change the range penalty. I'm simply simulating the Acc modifier by changing the base range. You get a finer granularity of results that way.

And as far as scopes, they serve to cancel range difficulties. As you point out, they aren't effective at point blank. So instead of calling it a TN reduction, I call it cancellation of range penalties. That way, you can never get a better shot than PB with a scope. We're doing the same thing in the end, just using different terminology.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

In the game, you use the Hand Cannon when smaller bullets just bounce.
My guess is that it's a semiautomatic grenade machinegun. It is, as you say, a made up weapon, but will here be used as a weapon against organic beings with a tank-like carapace. It may either fire explosive rounds or solid slugs.

This is problematic. People often think this way, but it doesn't make sense. A HE round is designed to damage things in a radius of effect. But it is actually much worse against armor. What you want is some sort of AP round, or for something with a bit more kick, a HEAP (High Explosive Armor Peircing) round, which is a very different beast. Or HEAT (High Explosive Anti-Tank). Or HEP (High Explosive Plastic, also called HESH, high explosive squash head) possibly depending on just how tank-like. Or perhaps APFSDU (Armor Piercing, Fin Stabilized, Discarding Sabot) for those really tough targets. That last one uses a depleted uranium round, and no explosives at all. Very much just a dart. The MPAT round (also a round called HEDP or High Explosive Dual Purpose) can be set to either HE or HEAT before firing.

Of course, these are mostly tank rounds, but one could theorize something similar being used in a hand weapon, I suppose. When an infantryman today wants to defeat an armored target, he uses a HEAT round of some sort. Ralph's aforementioned Bazooka. But these haven't been used for a while. Today the infantryman has to use some sort of rocket propelled round froma shoulder fired launcher, as the ammount of material flung must be pretty large to affect a tank.

So what we'd have to assume is that there are some stronger explosives available out there to make a hand calibre weapon of any use in this case. Still, on wonders why you just woudn't go with a large volume of SLAP (Saboted Light Armor Penetrator). This is .50 cal ammo that I think would take care of anything that was not actually a tank.

Hmmm. It's problematic, you see. Such weapons sound cool to theorize about, but they just aren't very realistic. If I'm going up against a tanklike monster, I'm going to carry a Dragon. Make me a light auto version of this in your game, and I'll be very happy.

Mike

[Valamir]

If I'm going up against a tanklike monster, I'm going to carry a Dragon.

Really?  Dragons are kind of heavy to carry around.

I'd be more inclined to just let him fly on his own and just call him when I need him.

<duck>

[Mokkurkalfe]

I really thought you were joking 'bout carrying a Dragon at first.

There will be a recoilless rifle(e.g. M3), or perhaps an AT-4. They'll be more for taking out alien robots and tanks though.
I myself just snatched the Hand Cannon from the original computer game, so I never reflected on it's purpose.
What do you(i.e. anybody qualified to answer) suggest as an tank-armor piercing weapon, useful in both long and (very) short distances against fast and relatively small targets?

[Thirsty Viking]

The reason I argue straight line modifiers is that the shot that is off 3 inches at 50 meters is off by 18 inches at 300 meters on the same trajectory.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with aim. The difficulty of placing a weapon on target like most things in nature is on a logarithmic curve. This is recognized by most games, and is pretty well verified by any number of sources. [/quote]

Ok RoS is already an Open ended Scale that Appears somewhat  Logrithmic to me (but I'm not a math PHD, it may have a different name).
Personally I thought having someone(ungifted and average) succeede in hitting a man 800 yards away (TN 19 on my system) with an standard M16A2 fired in single shot mode from a free standing position (no modifiers) with only 1 second of dedicated aiming (8d for average Wit of 4) 14.92% of the time without a Gift was very GENEROUS IMO.  

Code Select Expand

My successful hits at 800 meters.  Assuming sufficient MP for 2xWit
Wit    Average     Sharp      Expert
4        14.92%     21.63%   33.66%
5        18.29%     26.26%   40.13%
6        21.53%     30.62%   45.96%
7        24.64%     34.72%   51.23%


If your going to tell me that the Average National Guardsman can make that shot 57% of the time....  and targets at 1500 meters with an M16 53% of the time....   We are just not going to agree.
My success % for 8d at 1500 meters for joe average TN 31  is .8%  Not an impossible shot but not very bloody likely either.   Thats what M-60's (maybe) and sniper teams(definately) are for.  Theres a really nice sight called SnipersParadise this article talks about canadian snipers being given Bronze Stars for killing enemy troops and snipers at 1700-2430 yards that our forces couldn't engage with their normal weapons (at least not successfully).  The 2430 yards being the longest kill shot ever documented in Battle conditions BTW.  Their weapons were Macmillian Tac-50s.  Gurps lists the max range of an M16 at 3843 yards...  i'm sure that is using it as artillery though :-)  I've never seen or heard about a scoped M16  ..  we have much better specialty weapons for that range, but I digress.

Well, yes, I'm suggesting changes to the system. As it stands firearms are not "our system". So I feel no need to be bound to the rules exactly.

I feel the RoS ranged system works well.  Remember gurps is a closed bell curve system they are much more cramped.  I spoke unclearly...  I meant that changing a gurps number by one has the effect often times of changing our TN by 2-4+.  Gurps range modifiers are unrealistic but very playable for high fantasy every m16 a sniper weapon games IMO.  

Lets model numbers at ranges...by giving the % chance of 1 success. I think you'll see that the diminishing returns of our ROLLING system made by jake give a good result for the TN's as long as the base range is a good fit for the weapon.  It also saves rules for max ranges for the weaopn  ... that is roughly TN 30 for a .8% success at 8d10.  the weapon can shoot further of course.... But your Clearly wasting ammo hopng for a lucky shot.

Here is how my system works out...  I don't claim it's perfect...  but for an un gifted average stat rifleman  taking shots with 1 sec dedicated aim standing unsupported...  tell me where it isn't relatively fair or generous for an m16 and we can try to deal with it.  And it is the RoS  Missle system...  no new mechanic.  I'd smooth the drop at TN 10 if i could,  but this is inherent in RoS.

Code Select Expand


TN Range 8d hit%
06 0000 99.61%
07 0050 98.32%
08 0100 94.24%
09 0150 83.22%
10 0200 56.95%
11 0250 56.95%
12 0300 52.97%
13 0350 48.68%
14 0400 44.04%
15 0450 39.04%
16 0500 33.66%
17 0550 27.86%
18 0600 21.63%
19 0650 14.92%
20 0700 07.73%
21 0750 07.73%
22 0800 06.98%
23 0850 06.22%
24 0900 05.46%
25 0950 04.70%
26 1000 3.93%
27 1050 3.16%
28 1100 2.37%
29 1150 1.59%
30 1200 0.80%


assuming 40 shots equally devided between 75 150 225 and 300 yards on a taget range (I don't remember the exact placement)

He'd hit ~10@75 8@150 6@225 5@300   for a score of 29 the top of marksman

If sharpshooter is minor gift reducing range mod by 1 and same guy has it he hits ~10@75  9@150 8@225 6@300  score 33  mid range Sharpshooter

If Expertshooter is a major Gift reducing range mod by 3 and same guy has it he hits ~10@75    10@150    10@225   and   8@300  a score of 38 middle of the expert range.

The effect of Wit on my system assuming MP >= wit*2...

Code Select Expand


ungifted

wit 75 150 225 300 typical score
3 9.5 7.4 4.7 4.3 25.9
4 9.8 8.3 5.7 5.3 29.1
5 9.9 8.9 6.5 6.1 31.5
6 10.0 9.3 7.2 6.8 33.2
7 10.0 9.6 7.7 7.3 34.6

Sharpshooter

wit 75 150 225 300 typical score
3 10.0 8.8 7.4 4.7 30.8
4 10.0 9.4 8.3 5.7 33.4
5 10.0 9.7 8.9 6.5 35.2
6 10.0 9.9 9.3 7.2 36.3
7 10.0 9.9 9.6 7.7 37.2

Expert Shooter

wit 75 150 225 300 typical score
3 10.0 9.8 9.5 7.4 36.7
4 10.0 10.0 9.8 8.3 38.1
5 10.0 10.0 9.9 8.9 38.9
6 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.3 39.3
7 10.0 10.0 10.0 9.6 39.6


As you can see with suficient training average scores for..  wit 5 ungifted would qualify as sharpshooters in the army , Wit 6 sharpshooters would be borderline Experts, And Wit 7 ExpertShooters would shoot perfect 3 out of 5 times (give him a sniper rifle).  Side Note...  The Gifts Qualify my sample soldiers with a wit 3....  with the modifiers of supported position for half the shots and for prone on the other half... a WIT 2  might make the cut.  These numbers  were not modified though.

[Mike Holmes]

If your going to tell me that the Average National Guardsman can make that shot 57% of the time....  and targets at 1500 meters with an M16 53% of the time....   We are just not going to agree.

Hell no, I never said that at all. I agree that the TN I gave is for target shooting, prone supported position, some small amount of time to aim, etc. I agree with all your modifiers above. Snapshots would be much higherr, TN more like 14, 15 or maybe higher. And using the doubling effect, you do have to put a max range on shots. Anything over 800 meters is a completely random and unaimed shot.

Given these modifiers (which I was just ignoring for simplicity as such rules did not exist prior to you making them up), to keep the base TN where I had it, I'd have to lower the base range to about 5 meters. That gives.

5m   TN6
10m  TN7
20m  TN8
40m  TN9
80m  TN10
160m TN12
320m TN13
640m TN14
1240m TN15

Again, too, you could be more realistic, and include drop (use the above for lasers) and get something more like.

5m   TN6
10m  TN7
20m  TN8
40m  TN9
80m  TN10
150m TN12
250m TN13
400m TN14
600m TN15
900m TN16

You are, of course correct about the TN> 10 problem where the odds do not increase linearly. So you could declare any penalty that goes above ten to be doubled, or something. So a +1 TN added to a 10 TN would be a 12TN, and a +2 would be a 14TN (Hey, that's cool because it takes care of the TN 11 problem). In any case, this problem exists for both our methods. OTOH, it does make your method look a bit more like what I intend. Hmmm. That's probably still true with the doubling method.

My success % for 8d at 1500 meters for joe average TN 31  is .8%  Not an impossible shot but not very bloody likely either.   Thats what M-60's (maybe) and sniper teams(definately) are for.  Theres a really nice sight called SnipersParadise this article talks about canadian snipers being given Bronze Stars for killing enemy troops and snipers at 1700-2430 yards that our forces couldn't engage with their normal weapons (at least not successfully).  The 2430 yards being the longest kill shot ever documented in Battle conditions BTW.  Their weapons were Macmillian Tac-50s.  Gurps lists the max range of an M16 at 3843 yards...  i'm sure that is using it as artillery though :-)  I've never seen or heard about a scoped M16  ..  we have much better specialty weapons for that range, but I digress.

I agree with all this (including the artillery comment; again, I give it a max range of 800 meters). Scopes would increase the max range, of course. M16s come equipped these days with a scope mount. Not that I've ever seen one with a scope on it either, and I agree that it would not be the weapon of choice (lots of snipers still use M14s strangely). But one could. I'm not sure how it's germain to the discussion, however.

I feel the RoS ranged system works well.  Remember gurps is a closed bell curve system they are much more cramped.  I spoke unclearly...  I meant that changing a gurps number by one has the effect often times of changing our TN by 2-4+.  Gurps range modifiers are unrealistic but very playable for high fantasy every m16 a sniper weapon games IMO.

Well, I disagree. The GURPS rules seem to me and many others to be well designed. Considering that their line editor, Sean Punch (AKA Dr. Kromm), has a doctorate in Physics, I'm not surprised. It is an abstraction, as are all models, but one that is well thought out. In any case, I'd agree as I have before, that TROS's system works well for muscle powered weapons, but not for firearms which operate in a very different fashion.

I agree that your system does reproduce the army results well. I think what I have above probably will do just fine as well. A cool thing that my system does is explain the tactical need to move in on enemies when at less than 50 m range. And it explains the PB phenomenon. Which neither of our esitmates did previously.

Your system is probably easier, however, as it does not require a lookup or doing the doubling in head, and sticks with the same system across the board (one doesn't have to remember the exception). As such I'll acceed that any slight increase in realism that my system might have is probably outweighed by that advantage. And your system does have the advantage that the "random" roll for extreme range is part of the system as calculated (as opposed to just ruling miss). Which is always a cool feature.

So that all said, I'd pobably go with your system at this point. Just to facilitate play.

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

cough-cough-once-more-the-yanks-take-credit-for-something-the-brits-did-might-as-well-have-been-a-Mel-Gibson-film-cough

Including Mel Gibson would make it an Australian-giving-credit-to-the-Yanks-for-something-that-the-Brits-did-cough. Just to be precise. ;-)

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

What do you(i.e. anybody qualified to answer) suggest as an tank-armor piercing weapon, useful in both long and (very) short distances against fast and relatively small targets?

Well, you are going to have to invent something because there are no weapons designed to take out something smalll with tank-armor at very short range moving quickly. Because nothing exists which is small with tank-armor and moves quickly. And you certainly don't engage such a thing at close range if you can avoid it.

So given the parameters we'll have to make up a weapon from scratch. I'm seeing some sort of personal recoilless rifle firing a HEAT round. Lets call it a 37mm just to keep it in the more reasonably man portable range (many anti-tank weapons are this size). Assume some improved munition in terms of penetrating thermodynamic qualities. Then we have to consider ammo feed. Go with something like the "manportable" minigun arrangement, and have rounds chain fed. If each round weighs say 2 lbs, that means that a man can reasonably carry say 20 rounds.

I'd imagine that the weapon itself would weigh another fifteen pounds. Call him heavily encumbered at all times. Recoil is vented off to the right. Check your backblast area before firing.

How does that sound? BTW, such a round would make a hole in a man large enough for a chihuahua to climb through, and would penetrate a couple inches of steel. Would that do?

Or is that overkill. I can imagine a 20mm version as well that would be a lot lighter. Again, however, you can't make this a recoil weapon. And a recoiless firearm would kill the user. The shoulder fired rocket launcher is seeming to be the only reaonable option. How about an semi-automatic version of one of those?

Mike