Combat Rules

[headquarters]

I thought that I would start a thread discussing various issues or themes in the rules section . (If we dont have one already).To discuss things not covered in the rules or part of the rules that need discussion .

I want to start with a question :

has anyone used rules for backblast from RPGs in their game ?

What would be the DAMAGE STATS ( C:2 B:0 maybe ?)

[jester]

I have used this very thing several times. Since I have had characters do the following:

Fire a ARMBURST from within a room, and it fried the two other PCs and the firing PC didn't understand why he ended up suffering damage to a lesser degree.

A PC firing from inside a covered fighting position. He could of at least let the guy in his hole know. He didn't the bugger. So they all suffered less severe injuries.

Firing from inside the cabin of a wooden boat. Blew out the windows and left him smoldering and deaf, dazed and confused.

From inside a vehicle. Okay the vehicle had been hit multipe times and was on fire. And the other 2 PCs were gravely wounded, so this is the most understandable as they had little to loose. He did take out the BMP and only caused slightly more damage to himself and the other PCs.

What I do is have them loose initiative determined by the weapon fired and how confined the location. Firing from foxhole with overhead cover will blind you surely and make you deaf for a bit and scortch you depending on the sides so it will be minor other than letting everyone know you are there! Whereas firing from inside a closed concrete bunker with just 1 firing slit, your world will be rocked and the gase and flame have no where to go.

So, the PCs will loose their initiative as a result of the light and sound overload, much like a flashbang, suffering some concussion damage as well.

If they are in an enclosed room or inside a vehicle then they will suffer some burn damage too, this will all be relative to their position to the rear of the rocket, since most rocket backblasts are cone shaped, as for the actual damage, it all depends on the weapon and the confined space, but anywhere from mild burn to being hit with a HAFLA

[copeab]

Fire a ARMBURST from within a room, and it fried the two other PCs and the firing PC didn't understand why he ended up suffering damage to a lesser degree.


I wouldn't understand either, as it's one of the few recoilless weapons that can be (relatively) safely fired from an enclosed space, ejecting plastic flakes.

Unless all the descriptions I've read are wrong.

[headquarters]

Maybe the armbrust isnt the perfect example -maybe it isnt but that belongs in a technical thread.Say the backblast of an armbrust gives concussion damage -what stats ???
What about the rpg 7 ?

the 84 mm carl gustav recoilles cannon that I have fired many times sure warrant C:2 B:0 imho.

what of the m72 -shot ot too.Wouldnt want my arm in front of the bacblast-stats on that ?

I am most interested in ANYONE using this -and the flashbang effect I hadnt thought of ! Good one.Keep it coming -I guess my always well armed players should be disturbed by the question.or warned maybe.

[TiggerCCW UK]

it's one of the few recoilless weapons that can be (relatively) safely fired from an enclosed space, ejecting plastic flakes.


On a similar note in the early '90s the IRA developed the PRIG (Projectile Recoiless Improvised Grenade) for use here in NI. It was essentially an improvised RPG that they used with reasonable success against the armoured land rovers that the RUC used here. They managed to largely eliminate the backblast by using a packet of digestive biscuits in a similar fashion to the counter shot flakes that the Armbrust uses. The main problem with the weapon was accuracy. Sadly on too many occasions they got lucky with them - a school friend of mine who had joined the police here lost an arm and an eye to a PRIG attack.

[Legbreaker]

the 84 mm carl gustav recoilles cannon that I have fired many times sure warrant C:2 B:0 imho.

what of the m72 -shot ot too.Wouldnt want my arm in front of the bacblast-stats on that ?
I can't remember the back blast danger ara on either of these two weapons off the top of my head, but...

From firing the "84" on the range, it was noted the corregations in the sand quite some distance away were changing from the noise alone!. This weapon is also absolutely spectacular when fired at night. The ball of flame issuing from the rear, especially when firing ILLUM rounds almost vertically is something to be seen - bit on the hot side around the legs too....

While at Canungra (one of Australia's two jungle warfare training facilities - the other being Tully and devoted to section (squad) skills), we were taught that the M72 in close terrain was next to useless due to insufficent range to arm the projectile. We were advised that turning it around and using the backblast could be quite effective up to a couple of dozen metres. Note this advice comes from combat veterans most who served in Vietnam and a few from as far back as Korea. The staff are amongst the toughest men I know, and would probably put most SF soliders to shame! (One officer was still going with three broken ribs and doing better than 90% of us fit and healthy types.)

[jester]

I got scortched once when selected to fire a LAW rocket, needless to say my trouser leg was chared after the firing. And the section leader of the 51s a freind of mine made note of that.

As for the armburst.

Yes it sends chips out the back that all cool and well, but it doesn't change physics. A round is launched downrange via combustion of some form of rocket right? Where does the heat, gas and flash and fire go in an enclosed space? I have never fired one, never seen one fire, but I do not buy the idea that plastic chips can eliminate all of that, reduce I can beleive but eliminate no. I mean burning gas is burning gas righ?

I have heard that many of the earlier men who used rockets would have to hold their breath because of the fumes from the propellant.

My senior DI a Gunny used to man one of those multi barreled recoiless rocket launchers and I have known a few old timerss who used them too. They said it was like sitting in the middle of an explosion when they would fire their weapon. So, that is something to also consider how much pause does a gunner have to take because the gases disapate and his eyes can focus and his hearing return and he can breathe again?

[copeab]

As for the armburst.

Yes it sends chips out the back that all cool and well, but it doesn't change physics. A round is launched downrange via combustion of some form of rocket right? Where does the heat, gas and flash and fire go in an enclosed space? I have never fired one, never seen one fire, but I do not buy the idea that plastic chips can eliminate all of that, reduce I can beleive but eliminate no. I mean burning gas is burning gas righ?


The Panzerfaust III also uses a countermass (one souce says powdered iron, another plastic flakes) and requies only 2 meters of clear space behind it. The AT-4 CS uses salt water as a countermass.

Some other rockets use a soft-launcher, where a small charge ejects the rocket from the tube, then a few meters later the main motor in the rocket kicks in. This greatly reduces backblast.

While it would certainly be unpleasant to be behind any of these weapons when fired, I'm sure it's a low more unlpeasant to be behind a LAW or RPG-7.

[headquarters]

I know the Swedes tested the 84 with 2 gunners with no hearing protection or helmets to see what kind of combat efficiency you get without.After some 60 rounds both loader and gunner were in effect temporarily deaf,had concussions and very disorientated.

I guess C:2 for direct contact with the blast stands to reason then .(being halved for every 8 meters out as pr core rules.)

I also think I will go to C:2 for the M72 based on the Aussie story and whatever little I have seen of it myself .

I would be happy to be corrected if anyone got anything .

As for the Soviet RPG-7 series ( the older versions are quite similar but with less caliber,different sights etc etc ) -I have a feel it gives a trashing backblast -but sadly never fired one .Anyone got any on this ?
Also of course the US "RPGs" like M82 SMAW or whatever it is called in real life ,the venerable "bazooka" -please try your hands on coming up with stats for me .

Next topic in the thread for those who are done with backblast follows shortly .(Anyone can start one though).

[headquarters]

The weapon remains the same ,but the available loads for it can vary a lot .

We used to have a lot of various ammo in our forces -black ring marked armour piercing .30-06 (7,62x63), tracers with red ring marks ,regular FMJs etc etc .

Same for the .308 we used later ( 7,62x51)

I guess this is also the case for other rifles and handguns out there.

Has anyone come up with stats for

-armour piercing rounds
-hollow points
-long range handloads/factory loads

please chime in with stats in regards to damage,penetration,range and recoil .

[copeab]

I thought GURPS had some specific backblast rules, but all I could find were generic ones for recoilless weapons in GURPS Vehicles.

In GURPS, weapons with a hot gas backblast have a lethat range of (bore in mm.10) yards and do 4d6 fire damage. In T2K terms, damge would probably be 4d10. For weapons that don't use hot gases, a divisor of 50 and damage of 1f6 (or perhaps 1d10) seems more appropriate, although GURPS only addresses hot gas backblast. I'd apply the damage to the firer if he didn't have sufficient room behind him, otherwise only to anyone unlucky enough to get in the way.

[TiggerCCW UK]

The weapon remains the same ,but the available loads for it can vary a lot .

We used to have a lot of various ammo in our forces -black ring marked armour piercing .30-06 (7,62x63), tracers with red ring marks ,regular FMJs etc etc .

Same for the .308 we used later ( 7,62x51)

I guess this is also the case for other rifles and handguns out there.

Has anyone come up with stats for

-armour piercing rounds
-hollow points
-long range handloads/factory loads

please chime in with stats in regards to damage,penetration,range and recoil .

I seem to remember seeing rules for AP ammo in a supplement somewhere where it stated that the damage was reduced by one dice but pen was doubled, but I may have dreamt it.

[Legbreaker]

The backblast danger area for the 84mm L14A1 SRAAW (Carl Gustav) is listed as "60 metres long x 800 mils (45 degrees) from the axis".
The M72 has a danger area of 40 metres with the same angle as the 84mm.

From http://www.nvbmb.nl/downloads/b-gl-314-008pt-001.pdf
18. Backblast Area. The M72E5. The propellant gases escape to the rear of the launcher and can cause severe injury to personnel and damage to equipment located within close proximity to the breech of the launcher (Figure 5-3). The danger zone extends 40 metres to the rear of the launcher and has a base of 1600 mils. All personnel, equipment and flammable materials must be clear of this area. The total backblast danger area is 175 metres deep and includes a burst danger area in which no personnel are allowed. During training, the 40 metre danger area should be marked off and kept clear of all personnel and equipment. Forward danger area templates for both stationary and moving targets are shown

[Legbreaker]

I seem to remember seeing rules for AP ammo in a supplement somewhere where it stated that the damage was reduced by one dice but pen was doubled, but I may have dreamt it.
Not quite....
This is from the referees screen (or more accurately the booklet that comes with it).
Enhanced Damage Rounds: These rounds include a broad class of small arms rounds specially-designed to trade off penetration for increased tissue damage, usually by causing the round to widen, flatten, and/or fragment. Special rounds include hollow-points, mercury loads, reversed wadcutters, dum-dums, and a number of proprietary designs too numerous to mention. Such rounds are not suitable for military use (as they violate a number of international accords and their inferior performance against body armour makes them less suitable for most military firefights).
Special rounds are available only at the referee's discretion, and only in calibres between .22LR and .45ACP. They weigh the same as normal rounds, and cost the same. Availability is up to the referee, but they cannot be more common than the round they are based upon.
Add 1 to Damage value of enhanced damage rounds, but add 2 to the penetration value. When the penetration number equals or exceeds the modified damage number, it becomes Nil. For example: A standard 7.62mmN rounds has damage of 4, and penetration of 2-3-Nil. With enhanced damage rounds, the damage becomes 5, and the penetration 4-Nil (2-3-Nil plus 2 becomes 4-5-Nil, but since 5 equals the damage, value, it becomes Nil). The round will do more damage, but is less effective against body armour.

[jester]

Backblast:

Tghe newer rounds with the stuff be it salt water or iron dust etc may reduce the damage for someone in the backblast, but it will still put them out of action for a few moments giving them what amounts to stun damage.



As for the whole armor piercing thing:

Remember, alot of the markings on special ammunition is common and standard throughout NATO. I actualy had it in my magic book of knowledge that all good NCOs carried. And it was designed not just with common lettering but also with specific colors <colours for you European peoples> so that even if you didn't understand the language you could tell what type of round it was by the colored markings.

As or special ammo for small arms. I would usualy give it some kind of benefit like with incidiary it would give a chance per round to catch something combustible alight. For ammo since most modern small arms rifle ammo is steel core 5.56 had no special rounds, or all of it was however you want to say it.

Hollowpoint, would have moderate penetration value but I'd toss an extra dice for wounds.

As for something like 7.62 I never really included it as the round itself was pretty powerful as it was, and from personal experience I have seen 8mm and 7.62X54 go through sizeable pieces of steel and most target a belt fed 7.62 or 8mm or 30-06 round hit well for the most part the round would penetrate easily or not at all. Think about it, hitting a light vehicle it would penetrate easily, on a tank or armored vehicle however, it would have little effect.

[General Pain]

I seem to remember seeing rules for AP ammo in a supplement somewhere where it stated that the damage was reduced by one dice but pen was doubled, but I may have dreamt it.

That's one hell of a dream Tigger ;)

[headquarters]

I will go with C:2 = 2 dice damage to the locations turnes towards the blast I hues for the M72 and the carl Gustaf ( wich is a nasty package imho-for those who havent got it of course)

[headquarters]

The GM screen rules that were posted on damage enhanced rounds seem reasonable -anyone got any RL objections or other input ?

Plus 1 dice on the damage stat and plus 2 on the pen stat making penetration of anything alot less likely .

( Our book company owner and editor William Nygaard who was shot 3 times with a .44 mag by jihadists in Oslo was saved by his corduroy jacket stunting the effect of the hollowpoint bullets - say what you will of corduroy,but it is hell on those jihadist plots to undermine our democracy!)

As for ap - armour piercing - does it stand to reason that damage is lowered by on dice ,but that PEN stat is one better also AND that RANGE stat also increases by say 10 or 20% ?

Are there AP rounds out there say caliber .308 that would have normally
damage 4 pen 2-2-3 but AP stats will be DAM 4 PEN 1-1-2 ?

[Marc]

I will go with C:2 = 2 dice damage to the locations turnes towards the blast I hues for the M72 and the carl Gustaf ( wich is a nasty package imho-for those who havent got it of course)

I think it will works. And to keep things simple, the most important of the particular cases explained by Jester could be easily played following the v2 (or v2.2 rules). Double damage in an enclosed space and apply knockdown and stun effects as normal. I would add the blackblast effect to my house rules, too.

[headquarters]

I think it will works. And to keep things simple, the most important of the particular cases explained by Jester could be easily played following the v2 (or v2.2 rules). Double damage in an enclosed space and apply knockdown and stun effects as normal. I would add the blackblast effect to my house rules, too.

on the indoor increase in damage .cant wait to see if any players forget this next FtF ..MUAHAHAHA

[headquarters]

414

The rules concerning use of sighting devices could bear a little discussion .

If a character uses laser sight - a little laser emitter that "paints" a red/green dor wherever its calibrated to aim -what would be the effects on the shoorting ?The rules seem calibrated for iron sights or long range scopes ,but there are implements to make shooting quicker and more accurate today .

the rules in the GAZETEER supplement say that you get 2 aimed shots instead of one in a phase where you have already aimed the previous phase .

But is this accurate ?

Shouldnt it rather be just a numerical bonus to the roll say +1 for aimed shots or quick shots ?Or maybe " 2 aimed shots if previous phase was used to aim and +1 to quick shots ?"

any other suggestions ?

What about optical devices such as Aimpoint,Eotech,Holosights,Trijicon red dot sights etc etc .What kind of bonus to the shooting do you see here ?

Please give some input .

[Legbreaker]

I will go with C:2 = 2 dice damage to the locations turnes towards the blast I hues for the M72 and the carl Gustaf ( wich is a nasty package imho-for those who havent got it of course)
Doesn't seem right to me. As posted previously, jungle warfare instructors in the Australian Army teach the use of backblast as an effective weapon in close terrain.

C:2 means what? You stand more than about an arms length or two away and effectively all that happens is your hair is messed up? The M72 danger area is 40 metres in distance!

Perhaps backblast whould be treated more like burn damage rather than concussion or fragments? Using the M72 as an example (and only a suggestion, open to adjustment), damage could be in the order of 4d6 if within five metres, 3d6 out to ten, 2d6 to 20 and 1d6 to 40 metres. Hard cover halves these ranges. If fired from an enclosed area, the firer is subject to backblast damage calculated as twice the distance to the wall/obstacle directly behind them to represent the blast bouncing back at them?

The ranges and damage seem a little high in the example above, but I wouldn't want to go less than half those figures.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Don't mean to dis anyone but the Armbrust has absolutely no backblast - it was made deliberately to be fired indoors. Uses two captive pistons, first to launch the round, second one shoves all the plastic flakes out the back. Explosion is caught inbetween and trapped.
There's some smoke but not enough to really stand out

[headquarters]

4D damage is the same as the 7,62 N round gets in game.I dont really see that thats the way either .The amount of damage in physical contact with explosion is the stated number C:2 means that it has twice the potency of a 9mm round if you are at an arms length,1D up until 8 m and half that again 8-16 meters.I think the army had a few lawsuits in mind when they set the backblast ranges-at 40 m a m72 might stun you or blow a pebble in youreye ,but it is not gonna be as dangerous as being hit by a pistol shot .

all imho

Doesn't seem right to me. As posted previously, jungle warfare instructors in the Australian Army teach the use of backblast as an effective weapon in close terrain.

C:2 means what? You stand more than about an arms length or two away and effectively all that happens is your hair is messed up? The M72 danger area is 40 metres in distance!

Perhaps backblast whould be treated more like burn damage rather than concussion or fragments? Using the M72 as an example (and only a suggestion, open to adjustment), damage could be in the order of 4d6 if within five metres, 3d6 out to ten, 2d6 to 20 and 1d6 to 40 metres. Hard cover halves these ranges. If fired from an enclosed area, the firer is subject to backblast damage calculated as twice the distance to the wall/obstacle directly behind them to represent the blast bouncing back at them?

The ranges and damage seem a little high in the example above, but I wouldn't want to go less than half those figures.

[Marc]

C:2 means what? You stand more than about an arms length or two away and effectively all that happens is your hair is messed up? The M72 danger area is 40 metres in distance!


Well, seems HQ has replied just a minute before me. But after the energy invested struggling against my English skill, I will post my answer anyway. :)

Here's my view: In v2.2 C:2 will mean 2d6 at 10m and 1d6 at 20m, distributied among all the body parts begining from head, with the possible option (in my opinion depending of the GM interpretation of the rules) to apply 2d6 additional points to one single body part if he character is just behind the weapon.

If quick quill rule is used (with the chance to double the damage to the playing character if chest or head is affected), a wide range of possibe effects is possible.

I agree that perhaps burn damage must be added. And I must recognize I do not know the M72 but if the 40m of safety distance is "according to manual" in the practicing fire-line, it's possible that they have taken "the worst case" as a an added precaution.

[headquarters]

using an optical device -not a laser- like aimpoint etc -could it stand to reason that it gives a +1 bonus to shots over the iron sights ?

[Jason]

414

The rules concerning use of sighting devices could bear a little discussion .

If a character uses laser sight - a little laser emitter that "paints" a red/green dor wherever its calibrated to aim -what would be the effects on the shoorting ?The rules seem calibrated for iron sights or long range scopes ,but there are implements to make shooting quicker and more accurate today .

the rules in the GAZETEER supplement say that you get 2 aimed shots instead of one in a phase where you have already aimed the previous phase .

But is this accurate ?

Shouldnt it rather be just a numerical bonus to the roll say +1 for aimed shots or quick shots ?Or maybe " 2 aimed shots if previous phase was used to aim and +1 to quick shots ?"

any other suggestions ?

What about optical devices such as Aimpoint,Eotech,Holosights,Trijicon red dot sights etc etc .What kind of bonus to the shooting do you see here ?

Please give some input .

The Special Operations book for T2K 2nd ed. talks about taking three aimed shots when using a laser sight within 40 meters. I added that all three of the aimed shots must target the same hit location if the player wanted to declare a Targeted Shot (i.e. name the hit location).

I found this rule to be a little over-powered at times. Stealthy operators with silenced laser scoped SMG's can drop alot of bad guys, leaving the rest of the gaming group standing around doing nothing but getting bored.

I like the idea of a bonus per shot like +2, with a max of three shots aimed, but all shots must be Targeted Shots. The bonus for aiming would be cancelled by the penalty for calling tageted shots, but every shot would target the same hit location.

[Legbreaker]

I think the army had a few lawsuits in mind when they set the backblast ranges-at 40 m
Perhaps, but 175m is the listed safe distance for the M72 on the range from a US source I found http://www.nvbmb.nl/downloads/b-gl-314-008pt-001.pdf
420

This is from the US LAW manual. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-25/appa.htm
Backblast. Light antiarmor weapons have little or no recoil, because the propellant gasses escape to the rear of the weapon. This backblast can damage equipment or seriously injure personnel who are too close to the rear of the launcher. When operating temperatures fall below freezing (0NC or 32NF), all backblast areas and safety zones double.

(1) M72-series LAW. This is an open-chambered weapon, so it has no recoil. The launcher's total backblast area extends 40 meters (44 yards) to the rear (Figure A-1) and is divided into two zones. During training, both should be marked off limits:

(a) Danger zone. All personnel, equipment, and flammable material must be clear of this area.

(b) Caution zone. The weapon's backblast may throw loose objects to the rear. Therefore, personnel must also stay clear of this area.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-23-25/image460.gif
I think it's fair to say from reading those sources it's likely to be more than the odd pebble in the 40m zone...

[kato13]

Just did the math for the cone.

Assuming that the energy is transferred uniformly, if the damage is considered to be 100 (just to make the math easier) at 10 meters
it will be the following at other distances

5m 400
20m 25
30m 11.1108
40m 06.25

You really get cooked in the first zone but mathematically it will disperse quickly due to the power of squares. The damage at distance should probably be reduced a bit further as the wave would lose energy over distance and my calculations are based only on the area of the base of the cone.

[Marc]

using an optical device -not a laser- like aimpoint etc -could it stand to reason that it gives a +1 bonus to shots over the iron sights ?

This would be a useful thread...

Mmmmm...I think it would be better, to reflect the quick target acquisition, to allow the characters to performe an aimed (but non located) shot against a target without spending one combat action in the process. You can ask the player for a previous Small Arms (rifle) check to allow them to do it (as a way to prevent characters with a low-skill to take full advantage from the toy). If he/she succeds, the aimed shot is allowed. If not he/she must spend a combat action, as usual, to gain the aiming advantage.

If the player wish to make an aimed and located shot, resolve the process as normal, spending one combat action aiming.

If convined with a laser sight (accordingly with the rule of the "Special Forces" sourcebook), a character equiped with a red-dot sight could shot an aimed shot without spending a combat action (if he/se suceeds in the Small Arms (Rifle) check), and fire two more shots as aimed against the same target at less than 40m. Too much lethal? :firing: Perhaps...but a stationary human-sized target at 40m is a very easy target. In combat, you must still apply any modification for target/shooter movement and roll for location.

[headquarters]

like aimpoints .trijicon acog etc etc

should rather give a drop in bulk of say 1 due to the fact that it is more an implement for faster target aquisition more than an aid for accuracy ?

maybe something like :

"using an optical sigthing device such as a red dot sight like AIMPOINT etc lowers bulk stat by 1 due to the increased speed of target aquisition "

but doesnt it also give a to hit bonus-say +1 -at least at ceratin ranges ? I get a feel that its easier to hit when using one .havent done much testing though , most of my service these implements were still to expensive for us regulars .
Will soonish get one for my carbines and do some tests though .But until then -who can add something here ?

[Tegyrius]

Ed came to a very similar conclusion when we were statting these out for 2013. In our case, however, the Speed of the attack is what's directly reduced; Speed is derived from Bulk and a couple of other factors, whereas Bulk also affects the time required to ready and reload a weapon.

An Aimpoint Micro is on my to-get list, but given the current political situation, it's been pushed down in priority. From my limited experience with EOTechs, I will say that target acquisition is faster and surer than with iron sights, at least out to 50m.

- C.

[Marc]

Mmmmm...I can understand the +1 to hit bonus. But for the reduction in the blk (in v2 oer v2.2 ruleset), providing you are not using any houserule to determine the initiative, it would not have much importance. If I remember it well, blk is only used with agility to break the tie between two characters with same initiative. And even in that case, the character must have spent an aiming action (so using the sight) to take advantage to the -1 reduction in blk for initiative purposes...So, in my opinion, the increased speed of target acquisition would not be very well reflected in game terms.

BTW. What about giving the characters a bonus to strength, for purposes of determining recoil effect, when the character is using small arms (rifle) skill while prone (+2 to STR) or knelt down (+1 to STR)?

[Targan]

BTW. What about giving the characters a bonus to strength, for purposes of determining recoil effect, when the character is using small arms (rifle) skill while prone (+2 to STR) or knelt down (+1 to STR)?
I like that. Good thinking.

[Legbreaker]

If there was an adjustment, then it shoud be to Strength rather than Recoil - Firing from the prone doesn't have that great an effect...

Thinking about it, I'd be inclined to leave Str and recoil alone and simply give a small bonus to the range. Prone allows for a more accurate shot, not necessarily more of them.

Kneeling I would leave the same as standing, however sitting and using one knee to help support the weapon might have a similar (but not as great) effect as firing from the prone.

Squatting might even attract a penalty as it can be quite unstable with webbing, etc throwing off your natural balance. It is however the prefered position when in a swamp, rice paddy, etc and is certainly quicker to adopt than sitting or prone.

Firing from a rest, for example from within a pit with the weapon resting on the edge, would probably result in a similar effect as from the prone.

[headquarters]

yes we do - everyone acts in the same phase , determined by initiative .And to suss out the ties its an agility minus bulk calculation.

Mmmmm...I can understand the +1 to hit bonus. But for the reduction in the blk (in v2 oer v2.2 ruleset), providing you are not using any houserule to determine the initiative, it would not have much importance. If I remember it well, blk is only used with agility to break the tie between two characters with same initiative. And even in that case, the character must have spent an aiming action (so using the sight) to take advantage to the -1 reduction in blk for initiative purposes...So, in my opinion, the increased speed of target acquisition would not be very well reflected in game terms.

BTW. What about giving the characters a bonus to strength, for purposes of determining recoil effect, when the character is using small arms (rifle) skill while prone (+2 to STR) or knelt down (+1 to STR)?

[Marc]

Thinking about it, I'd be inclined to leave Str and recoil alone and simply give a small bonus to the range.

Mmmm... that's seems a good way to aproach to the problem, too. Thanks.


Kneeling I would leave the same as standing, however sitting and using one knee to help support the weapon might have a similar (but not as great) effect as firing from the prone.

Of course, I was talking about the "one kneel on ground" position, too. Sorry, I suppose that in English , the "knelt down" expression that I used in my post means with the two kneels on ground. :o


Ok! Here's another one. In my current campaign I have increased the number of situations where a player or non-player character needs to pass a "Panic roll". Crossing the danger zone created by automatic small arms fire, returning a non-exloded grenade to the enemy, exiting from cover when is clear that the enemy has pinpointed your location. These are some actions that could require a "Panic roll" check. Well, perhaps the term "Panic" is not the more suitable... It could be a "Courage check" or "Willpower check" or "Self-control" check. I'm sure all of you understand what I meant.

Anyway, I'm playing following v2.2 set of rules, so for the moment, PC and NPC's are rolling against their initiatives. If the character succeeds in the check, he/she is allowed to try the "courageous" action as normal. If not, he/she lost his/her action and can try it again in the next turn. In the examples above, the character could be pinned down by enemy fire, or decide to flee from the room when he sees the non-exploding grenade amid the rubble. A successful roll against leadership (or persuasion, depending of the characters involved and the situation) of a nearby character trying to help or give orders can give the targeted character some bonuses to pass the check.

The results are quite good. It's easier to disengage from a fight when somebody is covering you and the combat gains more realism. But I found that some of the low intitiative characters are too penalized. They not only act last, but are effectively eliminated from combat first (initiative reduction caused by wounds). Must they be less courageous, too? I think that's not necessary true.

So, I'm looking for a new parameter or skill (we can call it "Self-Control"), that must keep a certain but not total relation with initiative to substitute the "Panic Roll".

Any ideas. What system do you use?

[Badbru]

That's a slipery slope there. Dictating what the players may or may not attempt. I can see why you want to do it but I've had both sides of the coin there. Some players will push the envelope of what the GM will allow just to find the boundaries, whilst others will be adamant that that's what their character will do because that's what they want him to do. The latter can end in tears and/or you can loose players to railroading.

[Mohoender]

Marc

I see your idea of a Panic roll as a very good one but one to use with care. For exemple, with player having previous combat experience you should use it mostly when they are hesitating. With civilian characters or green military characters (no or little military experience) you can use it more often. Nevertheless, if one player has a good aproach to the situation you must not use it (IMO, of course).

The latter can end in tears and/or you can loose players to railroading.

Not always a bad thing. You can debate the GM decisions but his decision always has to prevail or you end up in chaos. Anyway, an unfair GM will quickly find himself with no players at all.

[Tegyrius]

I think there's a difference between arbitrarily taking away a player's control of his PC and doing so as a known consequence for risky actions. Morale and panic rules should have teeth for PCs as well as NPCs - if you apply them only to NPCs, then you inflict a fundamental tactical imbalance on the opposition.

- C.

[Raellus]

I don't use the v1.0 rules but I kind of like the idea of a Coolness Under Fire attribute. IIRC, it dealt somewhat with the likelihood of hesitation and panic.

If a player is a good RPer and willing to roll with what whatever the dice come up, hesitation and panic can add a lot of realism/grittiness to the game. If the player is not willing or able to RP anything other than his/her PC's best qualities, then use of hesitation/panic going to lead to arguing, hurt feelings, GM railroading, resignations, etc.

A little trick for the reluctant to hesitate/panic player is to just call it being "pinned down" instead. It's a little bit more of an objective term but it can generate the same results. If the player still insists upon movement or risky action during that turn, plug 'em!

[Marc]

Well, my intention is not to dictate or railroad the actions of my players, though I recognize that some of your opinions makes me think about this unpleasant consequence. I will pay attention to it in my next game. The feedback from the players about the “Self-Control” skill (we’ve baptized it this last Sunday) seems positive, but the first playtesting must be done next week. I agree totally with Tegyrius and will only add that, in my opinion, such a parameter (panic, morale...) is needed in this kind of RPG game, where combat and and a certain search for “realism” are strongly tied. I think that most tactics (in one way or another) deals with fear, the way to cause it to the enemy and the way to avoid it on your side. (Althought I know that an RPG combat only use to end with the total extermination of one of the sides :2gunsfiri )

Mmmm... Let me sell my idea ;) . For the moment, we are planning to use a new skill with an initial value of (Intelligence + Initiative) to substitute the 1d6 panic and bailout rolls used in the v2.2 set of rules. Talking in a more official way, for those familiar with the v2 (or2.2) rules, we will have a new asset, under the Intelligence characteristic, and with a number of initial skill points equal to the characters initiative, for free. The GM will assign difficulty levels as normal depending of the risk taken by the characters. So, thinking about what Mo said, this is the way the GM will evaluate the aproach of the player to the situation. And the skill is directly related to Initiative wich, in this set of rules, is a direct consecuence of the combat experience of the character. A player who is looking for a cold and imperturbable character in combat can choose to raise this skill.

So, the doctor of my group, Raquel (Int: 10, Ini 2), will have an initial Self-Control Skill of 12. The skill would be automatically rose by rising the initiative or by spending skill points as normal, no instructor needed. (3 in the case of Raquel, to gain a 13 in the Self-Control Skill). Anyway se will continue acting at its current intiative (2).

The direct consequences:
• We can use adjust the difficulty of the check as with any other skill.
• More Initiative or Intelligence implies more Self-Control.
• The new skill would be raised with skill points (by decision of the player) or automatically through the improvement of the initiative (taking part and surviving to combat).
• Initiative works as always when talking about the order of the actions and the number of combat actions available.
• About NPC's, their Self-Control level will be (Int+Ini):

Novice: 7
Trained: 8 (an intermediate level we use, novice with instruction and without experience)
Experienced: 9
Veteran: 11
Elite: 13+

[pmulcahy11b]

BTW. What about giving the characters a bonus to strength, for purposes of determining recoil effect, when the character is using small arms (rifle) skill while prone (+2 to STR) or knelt down (+1 to STR)?

I like that, and the back-idea -- STR modifying recoil. But I've never thought (though I used the rule) that using small arms should be totally tied to STR -- accuracy should be tied to AGL, and possibly even modified by INT.

But that's a slippery slope; base score modified by this and that and the other. Which is why I don't come up with stuff like that, and default to the base T2K rules.

[pmulcahy11b]

My senior DI a Gunny used to man one of those multi barreled recoiless rocket launchers and I have known a few old timerss who used them too. They said it was like sitting in the middle of an explosion when they would fire their weapon. So, that is something to also consider how much pause does a gunner have to take because the gases disapate and his eyes can focus and his hearing return and he can breathe again?

Maybe that's why they called it the Ontos (Ancient Greek for "The Thing")? A six-barreled burst from an Ontos can be a nasty experience for the enemy too -- it can take down huge reinforced concrete walls. But the biggest problem with the Ontos was 1) It was small, and couldn't carry a lot of ammo, and 2) You had to get out to reload the 106's -- something problematic under enemy fire to say the least.

BTW, did you know that you can fire a Dragon from the prone position? It's just real hard; you have to angle your legs and lower body almost 90 degrees away from the rear of the Dragon, and if you can, prop the rear end up on something. And your accuracy will be crappy. Best not to bother...

Anyway, in you look here: http://www.pmulcahy.com/misc_pages/care_and_feeding_of_anti-armor_weapons.html you will find my quick & dirty take on backblast rules. Not totally realistic, but serviceable.

[Legbreaker]

Not sure I like tying your "self control" skill to intelligence. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but wouldn't it be more "realistic" for the more intelligent characters not to stick their heads out into incoming automatic fire?

How does it reflect the very low intelligence, low combat experience characters with more bravery than common sense or self preservation?

How do you deal with the armchair soldiers who believe that just because they've seen movie action heros shrug off a dozen bullet wounds and keep going, they can do the same? Sure they might change their mind after the first round rips into them, but what if they get lucky and don't get wounded until say their tenth or even hundreth combat?

How would another character using Peruasion, or Leadership skill influence the "self control" roll?

You make the rule, we break it for you! ;)

[Targan]

In Gunmaster/Harnmaster a roll against a multiple of your Will stat is used for "self control". Checks like this have four (or occassionally six) levels of success or failure - marginal success or failure and critical success or failure. MS on a Will check means the character can act as normal. CS means they actually get a bonus to their next combat check (say for an Initiative roll or a weapons skill check). MF means they are mildly panicking or distracted and usually means they will just repeat their last action. CF means they totally lose it and either attempt to flee blindly or maybe curl up in the foetal position and cry for their mum.

As a GM I like to have all these results as negotiable with the player. If they come up with a reaction that I think is appropriate and fits their Will check result I'll go with that.

[Marc]

You make the rule, we break it for you! ;)
That's one of the true profits of a place like this forum. :)

Not sure I like tying your "self control" skill to intelligence. On the surface it seems like a good idea, but wouldn't it be more "realistic" for the more intelligent characters not to stick their heads out into incoming automatic fire?

Well, it seems the obvious choice if we wanted to incorporate Self-Control in the v2.2 rule set without many tricks. Probably, as Paul mentioned a few posts ago while talking about Small Arms, the choice to tie certain skills to certain characteristics is not one of the good points of this system. But once accepted (the alternative is choose a different set of rules), choosing Intelligence as the ruling characteristic for Self-Control was the logical step. Others systems, like GURPS, uses the Intelligence as a way to measure the determination and the conscious control of instinctive reactions. Traveller The New Era, with the same system of Twilight:2000, has the skill of Willpower, ruled by character's Intelligence, too. Its not perfect, but we could say that with more intelligence and more combat experience (Initiative), the character have more capacity to overcome to fear and do what he/she thinks must be done.

How does it reflect the very low intelligence, low combat experience characters with more bravery than common sense or self preservation?

Certainly a self-destructive combination! Well, if they are NPC it would be some kind of reason to throw themselves into battle in that way. Drugs, a messianic leadership, state of shock, or a blind, furious an immediate retaliatory reaction against the characters, etc. The GM can play accordingly with the difficulty level of the Self-Control check to interpret these situations. Even a Novice (7 in Self-Control)character has good chances to pass an Average or Easy roll if something exists to justify the difficulty reduction. Of course, if the character for some reason(PC or NPC) is totally unworried about his/her physical integrity and will be playing accordingly until the final consequence, no roll is needed.


How do you deal with the armchair soldiers who believe that just because they've seen movie action heros shrug off a dozen bullet wounds and keep going, they can do the same? Sure they might change their mind after the first round rips into them, but what if they get lucky and don't get wounded until say their tenth or even hundreth combat?

Well, if they get lucky and don't get wounded until the tenth or hundreth combat, they are not more "armchair soldiers", are they? ;) Again I think that playing with the difficulty level of the roll, the GM can face all the problems.

How would another character using Peruasion, or Leadership skill influence the "self control" roll?

Mmmm... that's a good question. First the character trying to influence must announce what skill would be using. Leadership for a quick, categorical order that will have immediate effect in the next turn. Persuasion for a more emphatic and long argumentation that will take effect after perhaps 1d6 turns. In any case, the success of the task implies the reduction of one difficulty level in the Self-Control task of the influenced character, an outstanding success meaning that no Self-Controlroll is needed to perform the risky action. That's always assuming that the player (if a PC)wants his/her character to perform the action. No roll for another PC or NPC can force a playing character to do something against his/her will.

[headquarters]

in our group is viewed as the synthezis of balls,brains,presence of mind,chutzpah,courage,self control or what you might call it regarding combat .

If they try to do something counterintuitive like running INTO a burning building to get a shot with the RPG at the tank , then an initiative check is mandated -quite possibly modified by a penalty if the task is indeed extreme .(diving into a pool of sharks in a feeding frenzy to get the mission objective doohikey at teh bottom for instance etc etc .

I like the idea of a willpower stat to determine if the PC CAN stay away from the gorgeous woman who is potentially a decoy at the end of the bar or -in our campaign - manage to stay off the substance that he is abusing for long enough to be sober at the firefight etc etc .

AS initiative progresses I run fewer tests though,6 means that you are unafraid or at least collected and with wits about you when it goes down imho.When they have 5 or 6 I dont see the need to roll unless they get into something weird or unknown or totally suicidal .

Running from cover in a fight -I dont roll if the PC have a 5 or 6 .Less than that -maybe .

[Legbreaker]

Atiff and I nutted this house rule out a while ago and should work equally well for either 2.0 or 2.2.

The G11 (due to it's design) could also fire 3 round quick bursts. Same as the single quick shots in the BYB, but roll 1D3 per hit for number of rounds striking the target. Simplest way I can think of modelling the extremely high rate of fire in each burst (something like 2000 rpm I think).
The downside to this is ammo gets used up three times as fast and it's still random as to how many rounds actually strike the target. Recoil is also figured using the three round burst figure rather than single shots (3 recoil per burst rather than the 2 of single shots). This would mean a character with Strength 7 could fire either 3 single shots, 2x3 round bursts, or 1x5 round burst without recoil penalty. Put another way, shoot at 3 targets, 2 targets or 1 target respectively.
Recoil penalty for exceeding 2x3 round bursts would be to Skill/accuracy rather than a reduction in dice as it is for conventional automatic fire. Range would also effect accuracy rather than available dice (since the third round is out of the barrel before recoil occurs and therefore the aim point is barely effected).

[Marc]

Hmmmm... bumping an old thread!

I'm preparing a Traveller: The New Era Game (T2k v2.2 system) for the next month and, while I was reading the combat rules, I noticed a little detail about recoil that (I think) does not appear in T2K v2.2. May be it could be useful for someone:

Rifle Recoil: Rifles (and other two handed weapons) may also bre fired from braced positions. If standing erect, this requires an aim action (for a total of two aiming action to fire an aimed shot from a brace position.) I lying prone, this requires no additional action. Either way, reduce the printed recoil value (single shot or burst as appropiate) by 1

Have a nice day!

[Adm.Lee]

Nice.

I hesitate to introduce yet another element to the Recoil vs. Str. equation, but that's useful.

[Rabar]

Hey all, new to the forum and new to the game. I have the V1 rules and I'm confused and would like some help, figured it'd be better to ask here than start a whole new thread.

I've taken to the rules pretty well, but one aspect of the game is having trouble sticking. Rockets vs Armored vehicles.

I really cannot grasp how it works, if someone could post an example of an RPG hitting the side of a vehicle, it would help me understand this one last bit so I can finally get a game organized.

Thanks in advance!

[Targan]

Hi Rabar, and welcome to the forum. There are 3 different editions of Twilight: 2000 and then there's Twilight 2013. Please specify which edition of the rules you're using.

[Rabar]

Hi Rabar, and welcome to the forum. There are 3 different editions of Twilight: 2000 and then there's Twilight 2013. Please specify which edition of the rules you're using.

Sorry, when I said V1 I mean to say first edition of Twilight 2000.

[Targan]

Whoops, my bad! I missed the V1 part of your post :o