The Horrors of Realistic Weapons

>Archive-Message-Number: 658
>Date: Mon, 23 Oct 89 12:19:43 -0500
>From: [email removed]
>
>I have been trying for a long time to develop a realistic combat system
>for Traveller.

I have a friend who uses a modified Azhanti High Lightning systeem, with
penetration and such. It is rather easy to run. If he can dig it up I will
post it, besides I haven't talked to him in about three months, both to busy
and it will give me a good excuse to give him a call.

Greg

- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Givler                        Q-Link: GregGivler
QA Analyst                         CompuServe: Greg Givler 76702,647
Commodore QA (Software)            GEnie: [email removed]ivler
[phone removed]                    INTERNET: [email removed]
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You mean you're fighting Necron?"... "Him and his mother!"
- - The Man with Grande Cajones in Fire and Ice
===============================================================================


All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.

[This came to [email removed], looks like it was
meant for [email removed].  Watch those automatic reply
headers! -- James]

> I would be interested in hearing how the people on the mailing list have
> reacted to the various combat systems created by GDW, and the modifications
> they have come up with to deal with aspects they did not like.

About a year ago I remade the MegaT combatsystem with the Twilight system
as an pattern. I'll try to dig it up somtime after the exams are done.

Very shortly it went like this:
To hit is, like before, a task and the difficulties per range are the same
with one exeption: All long weapons have Difficult on Short range.
(Try handling a rifle when wrestling!) Also, to separate the weapons alittle,
they had extra positive DM's on some ranges for some weapons
(Actually more simple than it sounds)
When you hit someone (or somebeing B-) the damage done was random. (ie: 4D
was "Toss 4 dice" and not "4 woundpoints") The damage the person sustained
was what was left when you subtracted what the armor absorbed.
There were also hit locations with capacities based on the UPP of the target.

This system worked quite well for small-scale combat, < 10 participants
on each side and not too many Autofire weapons with Dangerspace.

> (I have a feeling that
> for the most part, however, people will agree that GDW combat systems leave
> something to be desired.)

Yupp!

>      Mark

- -bertil-

- --
Bertil K K Jonell @ Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
NET: [email removed]
VOICE: [phone removed] / +46 300 61004     "Don`t worry,I`ve got Pilot-7"
[address removed]                             (Famous last words)
"There's Medellin. Drugs 'R Us, all in that one little city in the valley.
One nuke could settle things..." Tom Clancy 'Clear and Present Danger'

All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.

I had to respond to this article.  First let me say that I think that GDW
on the whole has produced some of the best combat gaming systems ever done.
For example: the Citadel, Avalanche, Crusader, Striker, Command Decision,
Twilight 2000 and First Battles games all have very good combat systems.
So I think that I have to disagree with Mark on most of what he states in
his article.  But what constitutes a good system to me probably doesn't
touch base with Mark.  I prefer systems that emphasize the command side
of combat to the technological, it sounds like Mark prefers the opposite:
>For a start, I have had to develop my own damage system--based not on
>statistics, for the most part, but on (a) location of hit on a person's
>body and (b) the actual damage caused by the weapon.
Realism is subjective and most gamers seem to feel a system is realistic
only when they can be a Field Marshall and a Private in the same game.
(Well maybe that is a bit of an exaggeration, but hopefully you'll get my
drift).  There is also a problem (as you said) with encumbrance, the more
detailed you get with a set of rules the less playable it is.  For example,
TAC Force is an extremely realistic modern armor system, but it is
practically unplayable due to the detail i.e. a minimum of an hour to work
out a minute game time.  Given that a typical modern action lasts 15 to 20
minutes...  However, the game is very worthwhile as a reference.  If you
want to work out individual damage then you have will be limiting the size
of your games to probably the squad level.  Which may work fine for the
kind of campaign your running, but a publisher can't tailor their rules to
your situations only you can do that.

As for GDW specifically I have great respect for Frank Chadwick's work and less
for Mark Millers.  This is mainly due to the fact that Frank spends more time
tuning his systems by running them past outside playtesters.  He seems more open
to other peoples opinions and more in touch with his audience.

As for weapons ratings this is always subjective, and as for bows specifically
I believe the bow in the rules is meant to be the normal primitive short
bow.  I think stats were given in one of the JTAS for long bows and
composite bows.  We did quite a bit of low tech striker and that rating
works out correctly.  Why do you think everyone in the world threw these away
for smoothbore muskets which have an accuracy when shooting at a man of 30 feet?
With most bows large die mods should be needed to use them at all effectively.
Modern Hunting bows may be a different matter and if that is where you have
experience add an appropriate rule for it.

I don't think anyone has ever not had to make provisions in a game for what he
feels is the right balance.  The rules for Traveller are not meant to be a
Bible, only to be a guide or a base from which to start.  We constantly made
up new skills while playing Traveller.  I redesigned the computers when I ran
Traveller games, because I know about computers, they don't.  Their rules were
OK for most people, but since I have specific knowledge I expanded the rules
till I felt comfortable.  Even Frank Chadwick frequently makes up new rules
as we go along.  For example last winter we began running a Korean War
scenario for Command Decision called East of Chosen.  We were faced with
the problems of human wave assaults for the first time.  So we made up
rules that fit.  Now I don't know what Mark feels is improbable or wrong,
but I don't see how he can say they have no clue about what they're doing.
Especially since he offered us no reason to believe that he does.  If you
don't like a combat system and want to make up a new one that fits what you
feel is the way to go, so what?  This doesn't mean the old system is wrong,
it's not a black and white situation.  Especially since this is science fiction
and who really knows how it works or even if it could ever work.  If you don't
like the abstract damage system for wounds, then design your own.  There are
plenty of guides out there.  Twilight 2000 has a rating based on limbs, torso
and head.  There is even a game called Bio 1 which works out for bullets
what got hit and how much the character bleeds.


					Non Cuniculus Est,
					    Tom H.

All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.

> I would be interested in hearing how the people on the mailing list have
> reacted to the various combat systems created by GDW, and the modifications
> they have come up with to deal with aspects they did not like.

I'm  probably in a minority here, but I am not much interested in exactly where
a character gets hit. I quite liked the old Striker/Azhanti High Lightning
systems, in which you rolled 2D for damage, modified by weapon penetration and
target armour, and got a result of No Effect, Wounded, Unconscious or Dead. The
only concession to detail I made was that instead of applying those literally,
I used the damage die codes from Mercenary, and applied damage to PC stats. It
may not have been very realistic, but it was quick, and it worked to the extent
that a big tough PC could take more punishment than a little wimpy PC. Instead
of using the original GDW method, I simply added the character's STR and END
together for hit points to unconsciousness, and used DEX as further hit points
before death. Finally, the damage taken was multiplied by a factor depending on
the penetration roll. If the penetration table said "Wounded", the factor was
1; for "Unconscious", it was 1.5; for "Dead", it was 2. The main effect of this
was that even a slight hit from a PGMP now became lethal.

If a location was needed, it'd be referee's discretion, based upon such things
as how good the damage roll was, what would suit the story best, and whether or
not the referee was feeling mean at the time.

Maybe we didn't have characters queuing up in front of the medic knowing just
where they'd been hit; but it meant we could get the fight over with relatively
quickly, and get on with the next bit.

 "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott

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

All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.

I agree with Adrian, that most people (in a game) don't care exactly
where they get hit, however I do find that a hit location system important
to some characters.

(e.g. The Sternmetal villain reaches for the alarm button, Susan shoots with
her snub pistol...(roll, roll)...and wounds the director, who proceeds to
press the button anyway)

This type of situation calls for a method of hit location, either as an
"I aim for the director's hand" or "He's not hit criticaly, where do you
hit?...(roll)...you hit his arm, the button is not pressed!"

However, you wouldn't need it every time. Quite often in a games that has
hit location, I ignore it unless it is important at that time.

	-Dan

[email removed]    Dan Corrin, System Manager, Mechanical Engineering, UWO
...!watmath!julian!engrg!dan  "Friends don't let friends drive Chryslers" -JPS

All opinions and material above is the responsibility of the originator.
Submissions: [email removed], or [email removed]
Administrator: [email removed] (James Perkins)
The TML is made possible by facilities provided by Tektronix, Inc.