Continuity of turns vs. Auto ranged weapons

[Ludo]

Hi GURPSmates,

From 3rd to 4th, the rules for Automatic Ranged Weapons changed a bit. I've got a "conceptual" question about it.

I think the topic was already tackled in another thread but maybe not from this point of view:

GURPS combats are divided into sequences, themselves divided into turns, in which characters undertake actions.
This kind of division, with turns of different characters overlapping each other, gives a sense of continuity, and thus, of realism.
...
As opposed to many other games where each character acts on its turn (round), with turns of different characters being successive and non-overlapping, giving the impression of a discrete unrealistic succession of actions (like some kind of 'syncopic' (if ever the word exists in English) moves).

I'm coming to the point.

The former rules for Auto Ranged Weapons (ARW) had us adding Rcl penalties from a turn to another, inducing an increasing curve of difficulty, thus sticking to the principle of continuity.

Whereas 4th ed. ARW rules give me the impression that if my character keeps its finger on the trigger during two or more turns, it is going to have a flat difficulty equal to the one it had in its first turn.
Aren't those ARW rules (even if I do like them) contradictory to the principle of continuity (or "transitivity of actions through turns")?

[Ludo]

Just adding a remark:

What about aiming while firing full-auto (which was easily understandable with "continuously" adding Rcl in 3rd ed., and which is not even spoken about in 4th ed.)?

[jahn]

Hmm, I actually don't see how a "continuous turns" point of view changes the arguments on Recoil penalties expounded upon at length in the other thread.

[Ludo]

Originally Posted by jahn

Hmm, I actually don't see how a "continuous turns" point of view changes the arguments on Recoil penalties expounded upon at length in the other thread.

I actually don't know in which thread it was tackled!

AND

My question has got two sides:
1- (the penalty) What about the former (3rd e) increase of Rcl penalties? Why a flat penalty whereas the increasing penalty seemed realistic?

2- (the aiming bonus) Isn't it contradictory to "break" time into "rounds" with this new rule whereas GURPS succeeded in giving the impression of continuity? Shooting 5 bullets each subsequent turns during 3 turns gives a flat bonus for each turn, can't I aim while shooting? etc.

[Luther]

Originally Posted by Ludo

My question has got two sides:
1- (the penalty) What about the former (3rd e) increase of Rcl penalties? Why a flat penalty whereas the increasing penalty seemed realistic?

I never fired full-auto, so I don't know :(

2- (the aiming bonus) Isn't it contradictory to "break" time into "rounds" with this new rule whereas GURPS succeeded in giving the impression of continuity? Shooting 5 bullets each subsequent turns during 3 turns gives a flat bonus for each turn, can't I aim while shooting? etc.

In G4, I think aiming while shooting (aiming successive groups - G3)
compensate for recoil, for a net +0. Recoil still matter, cause it's used
to know how many bullets hit the target.

0.02€

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Ludo

Whereas 4th ed. ARW rules give me the impression that if my character keeps its finger on the trigger during two or more turns, it is going to have a flat difficulty equal to the one it had in its first turn.
Aren't those ARW rules (even if I do like them) contradictory to the principle of continuity (or "transitivity of actions through turns")?

No, they just reflect the (at least, perceived by the designers) reality that if you've been continuously autofiring for one second, it doesn't get harder to control the weapon after that if you keep firing.

I think they've mostly got this right. If you can keep an autoweapon on target for a full second of firing, your not any more likely to lose control in the fourth second of firing.

[Kromm]

For the curious, we've basically said, "Everyone will aim continuous fire like a hose, and that more-or-less exactly cancels accumulated recoil." It isn't quite that simple . . . but it's close.