Range penalties fix

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

Half of all Aussie Army recruits can, without practice or previous firearms' experience, after a single days' firing, achieve the minimum standard, which is: a six inch group at 220 yards, firing a Steyr assault rifle, prone, supported, in their own time.

Out of how many rounds? If it's anything like USMC range qualification (although we shoot at much farther ranges) you are allowed to hit outside the black with a few rounds and still pass. If you are allowed to miss with 20% (let's say) of fired rounds that's going to lower that effective skill quite a bit.

[HANS]

>>Scope x1.5, +1 (pB289)

>-12-6+2+5+1+1+2+1+5 = -1

Are you still including the scope here? As I said, it gives no bonus. Also, p. B289 doesn't mention anything like a 1.5x scope and what its effects might be.

Cheers

HANS

[Whistledown]

A strong argument, except that you applied analysis and logic to the game rules ;)

[Kaell]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

One thing I've though of is that if you are aiming, and you don't blow your to hit roll too badly (say failure by 3 or less) you don't have to actually shoot. You see that your crosshairs are not on the target, so you don't pull the trigger. Next round, you get to check to hit again with all the accumulated aiming benefits. This makes it seem like aiming for a long time really helps, because when you finally do shoot, you are more likely to hit. Everyone just ignores the detail that you "missed" the last five seconds you've been aiming.

Luke

That is an excellent idea.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

Everyone just ignores the detail that you "missed" the last five seconds you've been aiming.

Luke, that is an elegant and logical solution.
I like it.
I'll use it.

Good work!

[tbone]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

One thing I've though of is that if you are aiming, and you don't blow your to hit roll too badly (say failure by 3 or less) you don't have to actually shoot. ...

I've considered the same sort of setup in melee, though I haven't played it yet. I like GURPS' one-second turns, because a person certainly *can* swing a weapon that fast... but of course he wouldn't necessarily do so, especially an inexperienced and unconfident fighter. So I considered whether the TH roll could allow for "you didn't see an opening, or otherwise didn't commit to attacking", replacing some instances of just "you miss".

From your post, I was just wondering whether by chance you'd tried out some variation of that in combat.

And after that quick side question, I'd better let the topic get back to range penalties. Thanks -

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

One thing I've though of is that if you are aiming, and you don't blow your to hit roll too badly (say failure by 3 or less) you don't have to actually shoot. You see that your crosshairs are not on the target, so you don't pull the trigger. Next round, you get to check to hit again with all the accumulated aiming benefits. This makes it seem like aiming for a long time really helps, because when you finally do shoot, you are more likely to hit. Everyone just ignores the detail that you "missed" the last five seconds you've been aiming.

That would probably be a reasonable way of modelling this. I'm not sure what the 'error margin' should be, though.

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by lwcamp

I'm no expert with military rifles, but I've played around with scoped hunting rifles and pellet guns a bit, and have done a lot of work with actual scopes (you know, big honkin' things you point up at the sky to see stars with). My experience is that while the magnification makes the target look closer, the aimpoint is still jittering around from muscle tremmors, pulse, gusts of wind, and so on. Since the target takes up a smaller solid angle and the scope does not correct for jitter, you are still more likely to miss at longer ranges even if the magnification gives you the same perceived solid angle of the target.

That comment was actually me quoting someone else - IMO it makes scopes too good, for the reasons you pointed out (and because there's still bullet drop, flight time, etc.). Also, G4's lower accuracy stats would make scopes too good in comparison to non-scoped weapons.

Now, if you had a stabilized mount in combination with a scope, you could just divide the range by the magnification for beam weapons. For projectile weapons, you would still have more difficulty hitting at longer ranges because of projecile drop due to gravity, wind blowing the projectile around, the need to lead your target due to finite speed of the projectile, and so on. Incidentally, this is how I justify lasers having such phenominal accuracy. They need high tech adaptive optics and rubber mirrors to focus their beams down to a tiny point at their target at an arbitrary range, correct for atmospheric abberations and thermal blooming, and so on. With all of this, it is trivial to add in anti-jitter algorithms to the optics of the laser to computer correct for minor motions of the laser itself (we already have these today for camcorders and such). This makes it much easier to hold the weapon steady while aiming. Plus, of course, you don't have beam drop, windage corrections, and don't have to lead your target.

Yep.

[Ack]

Originally Posted by Rupert

That comment was actually me quoting someone else - IMO it makes scopes too good, for the reasons you pointed out (and because there's still bullet drop, flight time, etc.). Also, G4's lower accuracy stats would make scopes too good in comparison to non-scoped weapons.

Well, snipers do use scopes for a reason.

Cheers,
Ack

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ack

Well, snipers do use scopes for a reason.

The +3 for an x8 power scope is plenty of reason - it effectively triples their range.