the tech code blues, or, character generation nightmare...

Robert P Poole [email removed] writes:

> Hi!  I'm new to the list,

Welcome!

> One of the rules says that Vehicle skills are limited by homeworld tech level
> and that weapon skills are limited by homeworld tech level and law level.
> I can understand the need for this system, but it confuses an already arduous
> task.  For example, if a player gets Gun Combat, and wants Energy Weapon, what
> is the minimum tech level needed?

  TL-12 (The PGMP-12 is the first manportable energy weapon, (BTW the Plasmas at
TL10 and Fusions at TL12 is the artillery version. Skill in them is called
HighEnergy Weapons (I think, since the books ar at home))).
  But if this character wants to use a FGMP-15 he will get -3 on his skill-level
(minimum skill-0) since he is trying to use equippment that is above the TL he
got tought to use.

> Another bit of silliness:  When the rules say that law enforcers, pirates, and
> rogues may choose weapon skills one law code lower than their homeworld's law
> code, does that mean one numerical level lower or one descriptive level lower?

  Hopefully one descriptive level lower.

> Of course, this begs the question of how one treats military characters.  (And
> I'm not even going to begin dealing with the Advanced character generation!)
> Do law codes apply to the various military services?

  I don't place *any* law restrictions on military, scout, pirate and noble
characters during generation. And I'm suspicious about if techlevels should
apply for those services that spans more than one world.

Sarge: "Right! Time to teach you people to use weapons! Everyone from Efate
	Law 0, Tech 13(?) line up for Energy Weapons training!"
Recruit: "Sir! I'm from Knorbes, where do I go?"
Sarge: "KNORBES? Techlevel 2?????"
Recruit: "Yessir! I was drafted, sir!"
Sarge: "Ok, You go to the armory and get a shield a sword and a platemail..."

  Probably would there be TL restrictions for planetary armies (wet, dry and
COACC). Planetary and subsector navies etc, but I'm not sure how this would be
implemented.

> Thanks for your help in advance.

Youre welcome.

- -bertil-
- --
"How about stealing that Chrysantemum? It's easy! There's only 300 armed
 terrorists between us and it!"
Sir Nah, aka 'The Runaway Knight'

[email removed] writes:
>
> Robert P Poole [email removed] writes:
>
> > Hi!  I'm new to the list,
>
> Welcome!

Ditto!

>> One of the rules says that Vehicle skills are limited by homeworld tech
>> level and that weapon skills are limited by homeworld tech level and law
>> level.  I can understand the need for this system, but it confuses an
>> already arduous task.  For example, if a player gets Gun Combat, and wants
>> Energy Weapon, what is the minimum tech level needed?
>
>   TL-12 (The PGMP-12 is the first manportable energy weapon, (BTW the Plasmas at
> TL10 and Fusions at TL12 is the artillery version. Skill in them is called
> HighEnergy Weapons (I think, since the books ar at home))).

Agreed.  However,

>   But if this character wants to use a FGMP-15 he will get -3 on his skill-level
> (minimum skill-0) since he is trying to use equippment that is above the TL he
> got tought to use.

I don't like this.  The main differences between the FGMP-15 and the PGMP-12
are (a) power and (b) the gravitic device which overcomes weight and recoil
problems.  The character shouldn't have a serious problem with (a), any more
than someone out of the Wild West would have with a .44 Magnum (except that
he may do more damage than he thought).  He also won't have a problem with
(b), as it's designed to make the thing easier to use, not harder.  Of course,
someone will have to show him how to use (b), or he will simply not bother
with it and use the weapon as if it were a FGMP-14.  The way I see it, if he
can use high-energy weapons, he can use any high-energy weapon - after someone
has shown him what's different from the one he trained on, and that applies to
other makes of PGMP-12 too.

> > Another bit of silliness:  When the rules say that law enforcers, pirates,
> > and rogues may choose weapon skills one law code lower than their
> > homeworld's law code, does that mean one numerical level lower or one
> > descriptive level lower?

You're right, it's silliness.  Around here, the law level is 8 - all guns
forbidden on the street, big blades not allowed, small blades frowned on
(i.e. not allowed unless you can give a good reason for having them).  The
police may have firearms up to and including rifles and submachineguns,
depending on the situation.  In Germany, the general public aren't allowed
to wander around with guns, but the police are.  As for pirates and rogues,
one of the points of being a lawbreaker is you break the law!

>   I don't place *any* law restrictions on military, scout, pirate and noble
> characters during generation. And I'm suspicious about if techlevels should
> apply for those services that spans more than one world.

I can just see the sudden rush of players queuing up to get Imperial Marine
characters! :-)

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]

Adrian Hurt writes:
> Subject: (1464) Re: tech code blues
> [email removed] writes:
> >   But if this character wants to use a FGMP-15 he will get -3 on his skill-level
> > (minimum skill-0) since he is trying to use equippment that is above the TL he
> > got tought to use.
>
> I don't like this.  The main differences between the FGMP-15 and the PGMP-12
> are (a) power and (b) the gravitic device which overcomes weight and recoil
> problems.  The character shouldn't have a serious problem with (a), any more
> than someone out of the Wild West would have with a .44 Magnum (except that
> he may do more damage than he thought).  He also won't have a problem with
> (b), as it's designed to make the thing easier to use, not harder.  Of course,
> someone will have to show him how to use (b), or he will simply not bother
> with it and use the weapon as if it were a FGMP-14.  The way I see it, if he
> can use high-energy weapons, he can use any high-energy weapon - after someone
> has shown him what's different from the one he trained on, and that applies to
> other makes of PGMP-12 too.

  There is several things that might be different on a PPMP-12 and a FGMP-15.
For starters, the recoil is not present on a FGMP-14. There might also be quite
large differences in user interface. I'd expect that a FGMP-15 has a flashy
3D-scope/sight with rangefinder and lot's of features, after all, it ought to
have that for *that* price :-) While at TL-12 holograpics were much more
primitive. And an FGMP-15 got that neat rules-defying fusion reactor backpack
that needs service once a day or something (Mercenary) while a PGMP-12 has a
'dumb' powerpack like the TL-8 and TL-13 laser weapons.

  It's quite clear that I'd impose a penalty for first use, but for how long it
would remain is another question. A suggestion would be for it to last until
the first AT in EnergyWeapons, and let the character change each AT in Enery-
Weapons that he had got using the FGMP-15 for one TL reduction of the penalty.
Or he could use the instruction and experience rules to get a new skill level at
the higher TL, which offsets the penalty.
  There is also the question that the rules for TL differences might be too
generalizing. The effects might be ok for computers and such things, but they
are somewhat suspect for some skills.
  Also, in some cases it might have been more realistic to make it harder to
go *down* in techlevels than go *up* in techlevels. Just because the character
will do a *worse* job when he is bereft of all hightech features.
  (Imagine going from a Macintosh to an Eniac :-)

> > Robert P Poole [email removed] writes:
> > > Another bit of silliness:  When the rules say that law enforcers, pirates,
> > > and rogues may choose weapon skills one law code lower than their
> > > homeworld's law code, does that mean one numerical level lower or one
> > > descriptive level lower?
>
> You're right, it's silliness.  Around here, the law level is 8 - all guns
> forbidden on the street, big blades not allowed, small blades frowned on
> (i.e. not allowed unless you can give a good reason for having them).  The
> police may have firearms up to and including rifles and submachineguns,
> depending on the situation.  In Germany, the general public aren't allowed
> to wander around with guns, but the police are.  As for pirates and rogues,
> one of the points of being a lawbreaker is you break the law!
>
> >   I don't place *any* law restrictions on military, scout, pirate and noble
> > characters during generation. And I'm suspicious about if techlevels should
> > apply for those services that spans more than one world.
>
> I can just see the sudden rush of players queuing up to get Imperial Marine
> characters! :-)

  Not really. There has just been one so far in my campaign. It might have some-
thing to do with the fact that a skill without a weapon is quite useless.
  Also, the players have learned that if they happen to find some goodie without
looking too hard for it, that is just because I am preparing something where
they will need it! (So if they found a cruiser just drifting around with the
keys in the ignition, they'd probably leave it, and run fast and far! :-)

- -bertil-
- --
"Look here! They say that I am dead! And they havn't even spelled my name
 correctly!"
 The Marquis Legandre again, when reading a TNS news item about hit untimely
 demise.

[email removed] writes:

> Adrian Hurt writes:
>> [email removed] writes:
>>> But if this character wants to use a FGMP-15 he will get -3 on his
>>> skill-level (minimum skill-0) since he is trying to use equippment that
>>> is above the TL he got tought to use.
>>
>> I don't like this.  The main differences between the FGMP-15 and the PGMP-12
>> are (a) power and (b) the gravitic device which overcomes weight and recoil
>> problems.
>
>   There is several things that might be different on a PPMP-12 and a FGMP-15.
> For starters, the recoil is not present on a FGMP-14.

Minor quibble - it is present on the FGMP-14, but not on the FGMP-15.  Which
is what I also said - and which would make the weapon easier to use, not
harder.

>						There might also be quite
> large differences in user interface. I'd expect that a FGMP-15 has a flashy
> 3D-scope/sight with rangefinder and lot's of features, after all, it ought to
> have that for *that* price :-)

Therefore the FGMP-15 ought to have some beneficial DM on its to-hit roll,
which the TL 12 user wouldn't get as all he'd be looking for is the cross-hair.
If he really is confused by the display, he takes a -2 DM, ignores the sights
entirely, and fires without proper aiming.

>   It's quite clear that I'd impose a penalty for first use, but for how
> long it would remain is another question.

Until he'd read the manual, or until someone had shown him how to use the new
neato features.  And the penalty would be at most -1.

>   Also, in some cases it might have been more realistic to make it harder to
> go *down* in techlevels than go *up* in techlevels. Just because the character
> will do a *worse* job when he is bereft of all hightech features.

Only because the lower-tech weapon is less capable.  I imagine that anyone who
could fire a TL7 assault rifle could equally well fire a TL4 bolt-action rifle,
but would not get the +2 DM for automatic fire.

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]

 In message 1469 [email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
 >
 >[email removed] writes:
 >
 >> There might also be quite large differences in user interface.  I'd
 >> expect that a FGMP-15 has a flashy 3D-scope/sight with rangefinder
 >> and lot's of features, after all, it ought to have that for *that*
 >> price :-)
 >
 >Therefore the FGMP-15 ought to have some beneficial DM on its to-hit
 >roll, which the TL 12 user wouldn't get as all he'd be looking for is
 >the cross-hair.  If he really is confused by the display, he takes a
 >-2 DM, ignores the sights entirely, and fires without proper aiming.

     I don't know if this is such a good example.  An FGMP is such a
powerful weapon, who bothers to aim it?  It's the equivalent of the
shotgun for energy-based weapons.  Just point it in the general
direction of the target and fry, fry away.

     How about a laser?  Now, *that's* a weapon that requires careful
aiming.  Not to mention the problems one would have if one trained
with weapons from the tech level just *below* that of the introduction
of man-portable laser weapons (actually, I consider them to only be
semi-portable, since the power pack is so heavy and unwieldy).  Imagin
having to adjust to a weapon that feels different, has different
aiming characteristics (you don't have to allow for drop, or lead a
moving target), and has no recoil at all.

     What, you may ask, is the point of all this?  Well, that's a good
question.  I was beginning to wonder myself.  Upon reflection, though
I think I'm saying that there should only be a penalty *where
appropriate*.  Appropriate places would be where the higher-tech
weapon is of a different type (e. g., lasers versus slug-throwers), and
where the weapons require a high degree of precision (e. g., single-
projectile slug-throwers [pistols, carbines, rifles] and laser weapons).

     In my opinion, of course.  ;-)

 >Only because the lower-tech weapon is less capable.  I imagine that
 >anyone who could fire a TL7 assault rifle could equally well fire a
 >TL4 bolt-action rifle, but would not get the +2 DM for automatic fire.

     I can agree with this, though I'd go all the way down to a
flintlock (TL3?  2?).  Not quite as far as a matchlock, though.  :-)


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)

"Brent L. Woods" [email removed] writes:
>
>      How about a laser?  Now, *that's* a weapon that requires careful
> aiming.  Not to mention the problems one would have if one trained
> with weapons from the tech level just *below* that of the introduction
> of man-portable laser weapons (actually, I consider them to only be
> semi-portable, since the power pack is so heavy and unwieldy).  Imagin
> having to adjust to a weapon that feels different, has different
> aiming characteristics (you don't have to allow for drop, or lead a
> moving target), and has no recoil at all.

That's why there are different skills for different types of weapons.  If
one trained on lasers which were not man-portable, the skill one would have
is Heavy Weapons (Lasers).  There is, as Brent points out, a big difference
between lasers (no drop, no recoil, no leading a moving target) and, say,
an ACR (with all three).  Therefore, there are the separate skills Combat
Rifle (usable on all sorts of rifle, from bolt-action to gauss) and Hand
Lasers (usable on all sorts of portable lasers).  Personally, I'm not sure
if laser pistols and laser rifles/carbines would need separate skills; in
the rules, they don't.

>      What, you may ask, is the point of all this?  Well, that's a good
> question.  I was beginning to wonder myself.  Upon reflection, though
> I think I'm saying that there should only be a penalty *where
> appropriate*.  Appropriate places would be where the higher-tech
> weapon is of a different type (e. g., lasers versus slug-throwers), and
> where the weapons require a high degree of precision (e. g., single-
> projectile slug-throwers [pistols, carbines, rifles] and laser weapons).

Different type means different skills.  There isn't a penalty; perhaps the
referee may allow a portion of, say, a character's Laser skill to be used
on slug throwers, otherwise the character gets skill 0.  High precision
weapons use an otherwise unmodified roll; rapid-fire weapons get a bonus
for auto-fire.  (I still prefer Ye Olde Traveller, or Striker, where each
weapon had its own DEX modifiers - DEX 6 incurred a penalty on precision
weapons like pistols, but not on easier weapons like SMG's.)

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]

 >From woodsb Tue Aug 21 23:16:26 1990
 >Received: by gn.ecn.purdue.edu (5.61/1.27jrs)
 >	id AA27970; Tue, 21 Aug 90 23:16:24 -0500
 >Message-Id: [email removed]
 >Date: Tue, 21 Aug 90 9:55:52 BST
 >From: Adrian Hurt [email removed]
 >Subject: (1477) Re: tech code blues
 >Reply-To: [email removed]
 >Apparently-To: woodsb

 In message 1477 [email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
 >
 >"Brent L. Woods" [email removed] writes:
 >>
 >>      How about a laser?
 >
 >That's why there are different skills for different types of weapons.

     Damn.  Where was my brain?  I never even thought about the skills.
If I had two working neurons to rub together, I'd be dangerous...  ;-)

 >Personally, I'm not sure if laser pistols and laser rifles/carbines
 >would need separate skills; in the rules, they don't.

     I don't think they do.  The effect of the two types of weapons
(laser pistols versus laser carbines/rifles) are a lot closer together
than the slug-thrower equivalents.  With lasers, the only real
difference is the power.  With slug-throwers, pistols are much less
acurate (due to the shorter barrel length and inferior sights) and have
a much shorter range (same reasons, basically).  Due to those
differences, pistols and longarms are used differently.  The laser
weapons are much closer together, so skill with one type should work
just as well with others.

 >(I still prefer Ye Olde Traveller, or Striker, where each weapon had
 >its own DEX modifiers - DEX 6 incurred a penalty on precision weapons
 >like pistols, but not on easier weapons like SMG's.)

     I have to agree with this.  Heck, I still use the old damages from
the old three-book boxed set (where each weapon did slightly different
damages).

     I've had some time to think about the issue of usage penalties
based on tech level differences.  I'm also a little better rested, so
I may be more coherent.  ;-)

     I (personally, in my own game) don't think that such penalties
make that much difference.  I don't use them, since I assume that my
player characters are bright enough to not even attempt to use a
piece of equipment if they haven't (at least) been told how it works.
This, of course, doesn't apply to emergency situations.  :-)

     Unless the weapon is *very* strange, even a complete idiot can
pull a trigger no matter what tech level he grew up under.


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)

"Brent L. Woods" [email removed] writes:

>      I don't think they do.  The effect of the two types of weapons
> (laser pistols versus laser carbines/rifles) are a lot closer together
> than the slug-thrower equivalents.  With lasers, the only real
> difference is the power.  With slug-throwers, pistols are much less
> acurate (due to the shorter barrel length and inferior sights) and have
> a much shorter range (same reasons, basically).

The pistol is still handled totally differently from the longarm, due to
the different shape and weight.

>  >(I still prefer Ye Olde Traveller, or Striker, where each weapon had
>  >its own DEX modifiers - DEX 6 incurred a penalty on precision weapons
>  >like pistols, but not on easier weapons like SMG's.)
>
>      I have to agree with this.  Heck, I still use the old damages from
> the old three-book boxed set (where each weapon did slightly different
> damages).

Rules customising time!  My damage system used the damage codes from the
basic set and Mercenary, modified by the penetration roll from Striker.
If your penetration roll said "Light wound", you rolled the damage dice
as stated.  If the penetration said "Serious wound", you rolled 1.5 time
the number of dice stated (a 1/2 die meant roll one die, divide it by 2,
round up).  If the penetration said "Fatal", you rolled 2 times the damage
dice stated.  The exception was PGMP's and FGMP's - if someone was hit by
one of those, no roll was necessary!

[email removed] writes:

>   To take another of those infamous "real life examples": When I was younger I
> did a lot of target-practice with an airrifle. Then in the AF, I got tought to
> use a SMG, and while an SMG is atotally different weapon from an airrifle, I
> had good use of the experiance from the airrifle (at least when firing single
> shots in competitions :-)

Translation into Traveller: the air-rifle practise gave you the general skill
level 0 which meant you didn't get the -5 for total unfamiliarity.

>  During an excercise, I had the opportunity to have a close look at the latest
> assault carbine in the inventory. And to put it frankly, I didn't find the
> safety until the owner pointed it out to me :-)

That isn't a matter of different tech levels, or even different weapon classes.
I suspect that someone trained on another assault rifle would have had the
same problem.  In Traveller terms, if a character picks up a new weapon, he
should make a roll to see if he can find all the important controls.  Finding
some (e.g. trigger) will be easier than finding others (e.g. the lever you
turn as the first move to stripping it).  A fumble might mean, he tries to
release the safety and the magazine falls out.

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]

 In message 1489([email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
 >
 >Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
 >
 >>      I don't think they do.  The effect of the two types of weapons
 >> (laser pistols versus laser carbines/rifles) are a lot closer
 >> together than the slug-thrower equivalents.  With lasers, the only
 >> real difference is the power.  With slug-throwers, pistols are much
 >> less acurate (due to the shorter barrel length and inferior sights)
 >> and have a much shorter range (same reasons, basically).
 >
 >The pistol is still handled totally differently from the longarm, due
 >to the different shape and weight.

     I don't think I agree with that, in the case of lasers.  One of the
more important considerations in using a slug-thrower is the recoil.
Recoil compensation for pistols and longarms is very different, due to
the different ways they are handled (unless, of course, your pistol has
a stock, folding or otherwise).  Lasers don't have that problem.  Sure,
you hold a pistol differently than you do a longarm (unless you're John
Wayne :-) ), but, other than that, there's no real difference.  Once
you've been trained to use a laser (any type), I think you should be
able to use any other type without a problem.  Of course, there are
differences between models, but that's getting a bit specific.
Sometimes useful in game terms, though.

 >>      I have to agree with this.  Heck, I still use the old damages
 >> from the old three-book boxed set (where each weapon did slightly
 >> different damages).
 >
 >Rules customising time!  My damage system used the damage codes from
 >the basic set and Mercenary, modified by the penetration roll from
 >Striker.  If your penetration roll said "Light wound", you rolled the
 >damage dice as stated.  If the penetration said "Serious wound", you
 >rolled 1.5 time the number of dice stated (a 1/2 die meant roll one
 >die, divide it by 2, round up).  If the penetration said "Fatal", you
 >rolled 2 times the damage dice stated.

     Wow.  And you survived the bookkeeping?  That's almost as bad as
what I did to a player once.  He wanted a nuclear hand grenade, so I
let him have one.  It did 1000 dice damage.  I made him round up 1000
dice and throw them all.  We used a trash can to roll them.  I made him
count them all, too.  After all that was over, I told him that he had
bought the farm in the blast too.  Seems that the primary blast radius
was slightly more than twice as far as he could throw the thing...
Taking 3500 points of damage ruined his whole day.  ;-)

 >The exception was PGMP's and FGMP's - if someone was hit by one of
 >those, no roll was necessary!

     Tell me about it.  I had a player use an FGMP on a bird one time.
Talk about overkill.  We ended up with vaporized parakeet.  It *did*
shut the bird up, though.  ;-)


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)

"Brent L. Woods" [email removed] writes:
>
>  In message 1489([email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
>  >
>  >The pistol is still handled totally differently from the longarm, due
>  >to the different shape and weight.
>
>      I don't think I agree with that, in the case of lasers.  One of the
> more important considerations in using a slug-thrower is the recoil.

Having handled an air-rifle and an air-pistol, both pneumatic and therefore
recoilless, I can say that you do handle them differently.  Whether the
difference is significant enough to warrant a DM in Traveller is another
matter.  I'd probably put a -1 DM onto the PC's skill if he was trained
only on laser rifles and was trying to use a pistol (or vice versa).

>  >Rules customising time!  My damage system used the damage codes from
>  >the basic set and Mercenary, modified by the penetration roll from
>  >Striker.  If your penetration roll said "Light wound", you rolled the
>  >damage dice as stated.  If the penetration said "Serious wound", you
>  >rolled 1.5 time the number of dice stated (a 1/2 die meant roll one
>  >die, divide it by 2, round up).  If the penetration said "Fatal", you
>  >rolled 2 times the damage dice stated.
>
>      Wow.  And you survived the bookkeeping?

There wasn't that much bookkeeping.  As I said, weapons such as FGMP's which
have awesome penetration and damage dice, I didn't bother rolling for.  If
someone was hit by such a weapon, that someone was vapour.  Other weapons
don't have that many damage dice; the most destructive weapon most PC's
used was a laser rifle, with 5D damage.  Assuming a "Fatal" penetration,
that became 10D, and usually did mean fatal.

I also altered the way damage was taken.  I added together a PC's STR and
END, and the result was how much damage the PC could take before becoming
unconcious.  The DEX was the damage which could be taken after that before
the PC was dead.  If the damage roll was greater than 2 * (all three added
together), the PC was blown apart, vaporised, etc.  These rules were a
direct copy of how damage is handled for animals, which also had damage
points to unconciousness and damage points to death; and if you scored more
damage on the critter than 2 * its total damage points to death, there was
nothing left to eat/skin.

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]

The previously included messages are gettting pretty deep, but here goes:

In message 1492, Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
>In message 1489([email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
>>
>>Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
>>
>>>      I don't think they do.  The effect of the two types of weapons
>>> (laser pistols versus laser carbines/rifles) are a lot closer
>>> together than the slug-thrower equivalents.  With lasers, the only
>>> real difference is the power.  With slug-throwers, pistols are much
>>> less acurate (due to the shorter barrel length and inferior sights)
>>> and have a much shorter range (same reasons, basically).
>>
>>The pistol is still handled totally differently from the longarm, due
>>to the different shape and weight.
>
>     I don't think I agree with that, in the case of lasers.

Nope, Adrian's right.  More in a minute.

>                                                              One of the
>more important considerations in using a slug-thrower is the recoil.

No argument on this point.

>Recoil compensation for pistols and longarms is very different, due to
>the different ways they are handled (unless, of course, your pistol has
>a stock, folding or otherwise).  Lasers don't have that problem.

No argument here either, except that recoil NEVER affects the first shot.
It only affects subsequent shots if they are fired in rapid succession
(i.e. before the recoil from previous shots has been totally damped).

>                                                                  Sure,
>you hold a pistol differently than you do a longarm (unless you're John
>Wayne :-) ), but, other than that, there's no real difference.  Once
>you've been trained to use a laser (any type), I think you should be
>able to use any other type without a problem.

This is where I disagree.  Sure, for slug-throwers, recoil is a significant
problem.  But the two factors which make aiming a pistol radically different
from aiming a longarm are a) lack of a brace (i.e. stock), and b) noticably
shorter distance between front and rear sights.  Even if there is NO recoil
whatsoever, these two factors will require you to adopt totally different
firing techniques for pistol vs. rifle.  You could treat a .22 cal. rifle
and pistol as being comparable to firing a laser weapon, since they have
virtually zero recoil.  People who've fired .22 semi-auto pistols may dis-
agree with this statement, but 95% of the recoil that you feel with a small
caliber pistol is the bolt being thrown, and not the recoil of the slug
itself.  I maintain that unless an advanced sighting mechanism (which includes
some sort of automatic stabilization) is used, firing a laser pistol will
be as different from firing a laser rifle, as a slug-throwing handgun would
be from a rifle of the same caliber.

Personally, my feeling is that by the time laser weapons come into wide use
as individual defense weapons, they will include advanced aiming devices
(i.e. gyro-stablized scopes with electronically enhanced imaging capablities).
Once this happens, then there WILL be no different between aiming a pistol
vs. a rifle.  IMPORTANT NOTE: if you assume that this IS, in fact, the way
lasers are rigged, then Brent is right and Adrian is wrong.

Bear in mind that the first man-portable laser weapon (the laser carbine)
appears at TL-8 (according to the Players Manual), which is what we are
supposedly at right now (circa 1990), right?  I don't have my stuff here
at work, so I'm a little fuzzy on that point.  Anyway, given the current
technology available in the way of IR and Starlight scopes, plus the advent
of the steady-cam harness so widely used in the movie industry, I have to
believe that in one more Tech. Level, these advancements will be small enough
to completely incorporate into a standard, sidearm-sized weapon.  At this
point, aiming all personal laser weapons becomes the same.  The only differ-
entiator at that point would be weight and unless the pistol/rifle weight
ratio exceeds 3:1 or 4:1, it shouldn't be a factor worth considering.

Most of these observations are based on a lifetime of hunting (since age 12),
plus a stint in the U.S. Marines.  I've had the opportunity to use most major
types of civilian-available firearms, plus my fair share of auto-fire weapons
and other nasty explosive sundries whilst in the service.

Later,

        Mark F. Cook (Ye Old Weapon-smith)

USMail: User Interface Technical Support
        Hewlett-Packard - Interface Technology Operation
        [address removed]

INTERNET: [email removed]
UUCP:     {cmcl2, harpo, hplabs, rice, tektronix}!hp-pcd!markc

 In message 1501 [email removed] (Mark F. Cook) writes:
 >
 >The previously included messages are gettting pretty deep, but here
 >goes:
 >
 >In message 1492, Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
 >>In message 1489([email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
 >>>
 >>>Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
 >>>
 >>>>      I don't think they do.  The effect of the two types of weapons
 >>>> (laser pistols versus laser carbines/rifles) are a lot closer
 >>>> together than the slug-thrower equivalents.  With lasers, the only
 >>>> real difference is the power.  With slug-throwers, pistols are much
 >>>> less acurate (due to the shorter barrel length and inferior sights)
 >>>> and have a much shorter range (same reasons, basically).
 >>>
 >>>The pistol is still handled totally differently from the longarm, due
 >>>to the different shape and weight.
 >>
 >>     I don't think I agree with that, in the case of lasers.
 >
 >Nope, Adrian's right.  More in a minute.

     After reading Adrian's last reply, I was going to send him some
private mail suggesting that we "agree to disagree."  However, the
(most recent) quoted material "gave me furiously to think."  ;-)

     I've reached the conclusion that we (Adrian and I) were both
"right."  More on that later...

 >>Sure, you hold a pistol differently than you do a longarm (unless
 >>you're John Wayne :-) ), but, other than that, there's no real
 >>difference.  Once you've been trained to use a laser (any type), I
 >>think you should be able to use any other type without a problem.
 >
 >This is where I disagree.  Sure, for slug-throwers, recoil is a
 >significant problem.  But the two factors which make aiming a pistol
 >radically different from aiming a longarm are a) lack of a brace (i.e.
 >stock), and b) noticably shorter distance between front and rear
 >sights.  Even if there is NO recoil whatsoever, these two factors will
 >require you to adopt totally different firing techniques for pistol
 >vs. rifle.  You could treat a .22 cal. rifle and pistol as being
 >comparable to firing a laser weapon, since they have virtually zero
 >recoil.

     I agree with this.  I shoot competition, so I have quite a bit of
experience with .22 rifles and pistols (caveat:  I don't fire "off the
shelf" weapons; I use match weapons, which are slightly different).

 >People who've fired .22 semi-auto pistols may disagree with this
 >statement, but 95% of the recoil that you feel with a small caliber
 >pistol is the bolt being thrown, and not the recoil of the slug
 >itself.

     Depends on the pistol.  My match pistol has no perceptible recoil,
but it's very massive, compared to other .22 automatics.

 >I maintain that unless an advanced sighting mechanism (which includes
 >some sort of automatic stabilization) is used, firing a laser pistol
 >will be as different from firing a laser rifle, as a slug-throwing
 >handgun would be from a rifle of the same caliber.

     Here's where my disagreement makes itself felt.  I just don't see
that much difference between using my rifles and pistol.  The rifles
are heavier, and touch my shoulder, but that's about it.  I'm strange,
though.  I don't use the sights.  I just hold the weapon until it feels
right, and then fire.  I'm a pretty good marksman, too, if I do say so
myself...  :-)

 >Personally, my feeling is that by the time laser weapons come into
 >wide use as individual defense weapons, they will include advanced
 >aiming devices (i.e. gyro-stablized scopes with electronically
 >enhanced imaging capablities).  Once this happens, then there WILL be
 >no different between aiming a pistol vs. a rifle.  IMPORTANT NOTE: if
 >you assume that this IS, in fact, the way lasers are rigged, then
 >Brent is right and Adrian is wrong.

     I do, in fact, make that assumption (no surprise, right?).
However, I suspect that I wouldn't use the neat little aiming gadgets
anyway, so your mileage may vary.  ;-)

 >Most of these observations are based on a lifetime of hunting (since
 >age 12), plus a stint in the U.S. Marines.  I've had the opportunity
 >to use most major types of civilian-available firearms, plus my fair
 >share of auto-fire weapons and other nasty explosive sundries whilst
 >in the service.

     Jarhead training, eh?  ;-)  ;-)  (Seriously, I have a lot of
respect for the Corps; the Navy taught me that, and one of my best
friends is a Marine.)  I've been using firearms of various kinds (both
civilian [at first] and military [later on]) since I was eight years
old (my Dad's a country boy).  I have some experience working as a
gunsmith, too.

     Anyway, that's where the problem lies; a point-and-fire
philosophy, on my part.  It doesn't help that I usually hit what I
shoot at, either, I suppose.  So, Adrian and I are both right.  We
just use different basic assumptions.

     I wonder...  Should we consider putting *both* styles of weapon
into our games?  It would make unskilled combat more interesting...
You could never quite be sure what you're picking up off that pirate
raider...


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)

Mark F. Cook writes:

>Personally, my feeling is that by the time laser weapons come
>into wide use as individual defense weapons, they will include
>advanced aiming devices (i.e. gyro-stablized scopes with
>electronically enhanced imaging capablities). Once this happens, then
>there WILL be no different between aiming a pistol vs. a rifle.
>IMPORTANT NOTE: if you assume that this IS, in fact, the way lasers
>are rigged, then Brent is right and Adrian is wrong.

>Anyway, given the current technology available in the way of IR
>and Starlight scopes, plus the advent of the steady-cam harness so
>widely used in the movie industry, I have to believe that in one more
>Tech. Level, these advancements will be small enough to completely
>incorporate into a standard, sidearm-sized weapon.

>        Mark F. Cook (Ye Old Weapon-smith)

     I couldn't agree more! As I work as a educational video producer,
I can give you a couple of ideas on how this might work(?).
     One of the problems facing users of the new light weight
camcorders is that they are SO light that they are hard to hold
steady. So the industry is (and in some cases, has) developed a
simplified steadying system. The basic concept is that instead of
steadying the entire camera, you steady the beam of light going into
the camera by means of a very small, lightweight, gyroscopicly
stabilized mirror. Now, swap the light going Into the camcorder for
the light Leaving a laser, and you have a VERY stable weapon. Couple
it to either a visible or IR laser pointer (similar to those in use
today on SWAT and sniper rifles) and you have a weapon with virtual
pointblank accuracy EVERY TIME!
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
        Bruce T. Ritchie ([email removed]) AKA: Zben Blaine
        Plymouth State College
        Plymouth, N.H. USA
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"The only way to discover the limits of the possibile is to go beyond
them to the impossibile."               A.C.Clarke's 2nd Law

"Brent L. Woods" [email removed] writes:
>  >>In message 1489([email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
>  >>>The pistol is still handled totally differently from the longarm, due
>  >>>to the different shape and weight.

In fact, having just looked at Striker Book 3 to check on weights, I think
I may have to retract that.  The TL9 laser "pistol" weighs 3 kg, and that's
not including the power pack!  (The power pack only weighs an additional
1 kg, anyway.)  That makes it about the same weight as a loaded SMG.  So I
suspect that for real precision fire, any decent laser pistol should have
a folding stock, like SMG's do, and would then be fired as a carbine.  The
laser carbine and laser rifle weigh 5 and 6 kg respectively, not far off
the weight of an unloaded light machine gun (5.5 kg).  At TL 13, they get
a little lighter, except for the laser rifle which weighs 8.8 kg - not
something you want to carry around regularly, and I hope it's got a
bipod!  As for the pistol - like a SMG, you could probably fire it with
one hand, but you would need some sort of check against strength to do
so accurately.

>      Depends on the pistol.  My match pistol has no perceptible recoil,
> but it's very massive, compared to other .22 automatics.

If it weighs 3 kg, it's a good simulation of a laser pistol.  (To make it
a little more realistic, fix a 1 kg weight to your belt, tie a piece of
wire to it, and tie the other end of the wire to your pistol. :-)  If it
weighs a little over 2 kg, it can simulate a TL 13 laser pistol.

>							    I'm strange,
> though.  I don't use the sights.  I just hold the weapon until it feels
> right, and then fire.  I'm a pretty good marksman, too, if I do say so
> myself...  :-)

So you get the -2 DM for snap fire (i.e. not aiming using the sights),
plus a good + DM for skill and probably DEX.

>      I wonder...  Should we consider putting *both* styles of weapon
> into our games?  It would make unskilled combat more interesting...
> You could never quite be sure what you're picking up off that pirate
> raider...

Another thing to take note of when picking up weapons after a battle -
make sure the sights haven't been knocked out of alignment ...

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]

 In message 1505 [email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
 >
 >Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
 >
 >>      Depends on the pistol.  My match pistol has no perceptible
 >> recoil, but it's very massive, compared to other .22 automatics.
 >
 >If it weighs 3 kg, it's a good simulation of a laser pistol.  (To make
 >it a little more realistic, fix a 1 kg weight to your belt, tie a
 >piece of wire to it, and tie the other end of the wire to your pistol.
 >:-)  If it weighs a little over 2 kg, it can simulate a TL 13 laser
 >pistol.

     Well...  Fully loaded (19 rounds, .22 long rifle), I'd say it
masses about 1.5 kilograms.  Close enough?  As for the weight on my
belt, I don't think so.  I carry quite enough extra weight already,
thanks...  ;-)  You should see the pistol.  It looks like something
that came out of a Traveller game.  Competition weapons frequently
do.  Sometimes I feel like Walter Mitty...  ;-)

 >> I'm strange, though.  I don't use the sights.  I just hold the
 >> weapon until it feels right, and then fire.  I'm a pretty good
 >> marksman, too, if I do say so myself...  :-)
 >
 >So you get the -2 DM for snap fire (i.e. not aiming using the sights),
 >plus a good + DM for skill and probably DEX.

     Doesn't seem very fair.  My accuracy actually gets *worse* when I
try to use the sights.  Go figure.


- --
     Brent

INTERNET:  [email removed]
[address removed]
PHONE:  [phone removed] (voice)

"Brent L. Woods" [email removed] writes:
>  In message 1505 [email removed] (Adrian Hurt) writes:
>  >Brent L. Woods [email removed] writes:
>  >
>  >>      Depends on the pistol.  My match pistol has no perceptible
>  >> recoil, but it's very massive, compared to other .22 automatics.
>  >
>  >If it weighs 3 kg, it's a good simulation of a laser pistol.
>  > ...
>  >	If it weighs a little over 2 kg, it can simulate a TL 13 laser
>  >pistol.
>
>      Well...  Fully loaded (19 rounds, .22 long rifle), I'd say it
> masses about 1.5 kilograms.  Close enough?

Not really - that's half the weight of the standard laser pistol, and still
significantly lighter than the TL 13 one.  Yes, by laser standards, I say
your pistol is light!

>  >> I'm strange, though.  I don't use the sights.  I just hold the
>  >> weapon until it feels right, and then fire.
>  >
>  >So you get the -2 DM for snap fire (i.e. not aiming using the sights),
>  >plus a good + DM for skill and probably DEX.
>
>      Doesn't seem very fair.  My accuracy actually gets *worse* when I
> try to use the sights.  Go figure.

I believe that this is sufficiently rare to fall under the category of
"referee's discretion".  If someone wanted to run a character like this,
they would need a high DEX and skill.  They would get the standard -2 DM
for firing without sights (which they could easily handle with enough
skill and DEX bonus).  They would get a -3 DM if they aimed using sights.
That way, I wouldn't get players saying "My character has trained from
childhood to fire without sights, so he doesn't get penalised in snap
fire".

"Mark F. Cook" [email removed] writes:
>
>      I just can't imagine a high-TL laser pistol having "iron sights".
> This would be analogous to a modern fighter pilot having to aim all of
> his on-board weapons just by looking out the window (without the HUD).

Or maybe analagous to the fighter pilot having an ordinary gun and gunsight
in case the advanced electronics failed.  Or analagous to a modern rifle
having iron sights instead of the telescopic, laser, reflex or other fancy
sights available today.  Iron sights have one big advantage - they are
robust.  They are also quicker to use than anything else, with the
possible exception of reflex sights.  I'd expect a laser pistol -
especially a combat pistol - to have iron sights, at least as a back-up
to any neat high-tech sights.

- --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]