Combat Rules

[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]

Originally Posted by Marc

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.

Originally Posted by 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)?

[Marc]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.


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).

Originally Posted by Badbru

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 )

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]

Originally Posted by Marc

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]

Originally Posted by jester

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/c...r_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]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

You make the rule, we break it for you!

That's one of the true profits of a place like this forum.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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