Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-13-2011, 10:48 AM   #21
vierasmarius
 
vierasmarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCurwen3 View Post
Strangely though some sci-fi seems to have this kind of scenario "fit". In the Stargate franchise, the Earth HT automatic projectile weapons like machine guns seemed at least the equals of the UT energy weapons much of the time. The aliens mostly had the advantage due to non-weapons tech, like personal force shields, occasional mind control, hardier metabolisms, and, of course, having powerful assault vehicles that could fire from the air or from space. When they faced off against the replicators, it was pretty much only the HT weapons that could deter them, with the UT blasters being worse than useless against them.
Heh, good point. Still, that feels like a conceit of that particular genre. I'd just prefer if it wasn't the basic assumption for most of UT. (I don't think it was the actual intent, just the result of UT being the vanguard of the equipment books)
vierasmarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 10:54 AM   #22
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCurwen3 View Post
Strangely though some sci-fi seems to have this kind of scenario "fit". In the Stargate franchise, the Earth HT automatic projectile weapons like machine guns seemed at least the equals of the UT energy weapons much of the time. The aliens mostly had the advantage due to non-weapons tech, like personal force shields, occasional mind control, hardier metabolisms, and, of course, having powerful assault vehicles that could fire from the air or from space. When they faced off against the replicators, it was pretty much only the HT weapons that could deter them, with the UT blasters being worse than useless against them.
That's specifically because the enemy didn't bother making effective personal weapons, not that they couldn't. There's even an episode in Stargate where it's lampshaded - the staff weapons are for terror (and style), but aren't all that useful in actual combat due to being horribly inaccurate and slow-firing compared with the Stargate team's TL8 guns.

There are some other alien personal weapons in the Stargate franchise that are just as good as, if not better than, the TL8 weapons - just the primary adversary didn't use them.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 10:57 AM   #23
Refplace
 
Refplace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JCurwen3 View Post
Strangely though some sci-fi seems to have this kind of scenario "fit". In the Stargate franchise, the Earth HT automatic projectile weapons like machine guns seemed at least the equals of the UT energy weapons much of the time.
Another example of why you might buy a weapon that didn't outperform in all categories an older one.
The Stargate UT weapons typically had unlimited ammo so were good for resource management and as was discussed in an episode where they were demonstrating the weapons side by side the staff weapons were terror weapons while the SG weapons were weapons designed for war.
The SG after the first season or so definitely could have reequipped enough of the teams with the staff weapons had they wanted to from confiscated supplies. However only the zat guns saw regular use by earth forces and that was for capture or stealth goals.
Refplace is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 11:46 AM   #24
Mgellis
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Flushing, Michigan
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by doulos05 View Post
The issue, in a nutshell, is that UT weapons and armor cannot co-exist with HT weapons and armor. The values are too low for the UT weapons and armor to be viable against them.
You know, this was never a problem for me. I accepted UT as the default treatment of ultra-tech weapons and went from there. The first edition had a LOT of errata, but most of them have been fixed (I know because I'm the one who reported a lot of them and the reason I picked up my softcover copy of UT was that I saw they had been fixed).

I actually think the real issue is a little different...I think UT tried to guesstimate what quasi-realistic energy weapons would be like and the result is they are underpowered compared to slugthrowers...because it takes a lot of hardware and a lot of battery to create a laser, etc. that will do as much damage as .45 round.

This is why I wrote my article for Pyramid outlining new heavy weapons. UT needed autocannons and similar gear. I suspect energy weapons will be mostly special purpose gear where range and accuracy or some other condition where bullets won't cut it require their use. But, frankly, it's easier to get serious killing power out of a slugthrower, conventional or gauss, than it is to get it out of a beam. Beam weapons are great for spacecraft because of the distances involved, and they're great as anti-missile weapons where you can have a vehicle-sized piece of gear, but they're less useful for infantry (at least, using the UT guidelines) because it's hard to get serious killing power out of them. Also, they are less versatile...you only get one kind of "ammunition" with a laser. :) There is still plenty of room for beams as special weapons like flamethrowers are today, but most soldiers, if we're using UT, are probably better off with a slugthrower and an integral grenade launcher.
Mgellis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 12:31 PM   #25
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgellis View Post
You know, this was never a problem for me. I accepted UT as the default treatment of ultra-tech weapons and went from there. The first edition had a LOT of errata, but most of them have been fixed (I know because I'm the one who reported a lot of them and the reason I picked up my softcover copy of UT was that I saw they had been fixed).

I actually think the real issue is a little different...I think UT tried to guesstimate what quasi-realistic energy weapons would be like and the result is they are underpowered compared to slugthrowers...because it takes a lot of hardware and a lot of battery to create a laser, etc. that will do as much damage as .45 round.

This is why I wrote my article for Pyramid outlining new heavy weapons. UT needed autocannons and similar gear. I suspect energy weapons will be mostly special purpose gear where range and accuracy or some other condition where bullets won't cut it require their use. But, frankly, it's easier to get serious killing power out of a slugthrower, conventional or gauss, than it is to get it out of a beam. Beam weapons are great for spacecraft because of the distances involved, and they're great as anti-missile weapons where you can have a vehicle-sized piece of gear, but they're less useful for infantry (at least, using the UT guidelines) because it's hard to get serious killing power out of them. Also, they are less versatile...you only get one kind of "ammunition" with a laser. :) There is still plenty of room for beams as special weapons like flamethrowers are today, but most soldiers, if we're using UT, are probably better off with a slugthrower and an integral grenade launcher.
Lasers are significantly more useful than Gauss weapons, mainly due to the high Acc and low Rcl. Makes it so they can deal ridiculous amounts of damage, so long as the opponent doesn't have enough armor to be completely immune. Other beam weapons have other good spots, where they're better than slugthrowers. Gauss weapons have very few places where they're really better than slugthrowers, though.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 01:18 PM   #26
apoc527
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

I'm also fairly happy with UT as written compared to previous versions. The main reason is that I like the toned down weapon damage. Previous versions of UT/UT2 had weapons that were basically unusable in games unless you want a "one-hit, one-kill" style of game. It's just not fun and it's just really not gameable. It may be "realistic" and it could work if one was playing GURPS: The Sci-Fi Tactical Minis Game, but for RPGs? I prefer 4th Edition UT with weapons that are far less likely to instantly eradicate PC lifeforms.

Besides, once you tack on the benefits of UT (ETC or caseless ammo), I think even the current crop of UT slugthrowers competes fine with HT stuff.

One other thing: higher tech doesn't necessarily mean "more lethal." After all, weapon damage has gone down from TL6 to TL8. The standard 5.56mm NATO round is far less "lethal" and way less powerful than the older 7.62mm NATO and American .30 caliber rounds from WW2.

Lasers have Recoil 1, high RoF autofire. Blasters have a (5) armor divisor. Plasma weapons do insane damage. Antimatter particle beams do lots of nasty things.

I guess I just don't see the superiority of TL7-8 weapons...and I think it's a bit of a strawman to use some of the crazy ammo types in HT. They simply aren't widespread. How many APFSDU rounds are made for AK-47s? None, as far as I know. THe vast majority of military bullets are simple FMJ--fancy ammo is expensive.

What I'm saying is that IF there was a revised UT weapon table supplement, I wouldn't want to see a vast increase in weapon damage just for the sake of making UT "more powerful" than HT...
apoc527 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 01:33 PM   #27
vierasmarius
 
vierasmarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527 View Post
What I'm saying is that IF there was a revised UT weapon table supplement, I wouldn't want to see a vast increase in weapon damage just for the sake of making UT "more powerful" than HT...
Mostly in agreement with you there. I'd like to see the UT weapons expanded to better fill their "niches", with some gadgets based on the ones from HT (such as the superior Computerized Sights) included as optional. Simply adding a greater variety of conventional and exotic weapons (some of which may just be "Fine (Accurate)" or up-scaled versions of existing ones) would improve things. The UT weapons do compare favorably to the "basic" TL7-8 guns, but tend to look lousy when compared to higher-end firearms (such as the L85A1 or G36, assault carbines with Acc 5 and integral sights).
vierasmarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 01:34 PM   #28
Langy
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527 View Post
I'm also fairly happy with UT as written compared to previous versions. The main reason is that I like the toned down weapon damage. Previous versions of UT/UT2 had weapons that were basically unusable in games unless you want a "one-hit, one-kill" style of game. It's just not fun and it's just really not gameable. It may be "realistic" and it could work if one was playing GURPS: The Sci-Fi Tactical Minis Game, but for RPGs? I prefer 4th Edition UT with weapons that are far less likely to instantly eradicate PC lifeforms.

Besides, once you tack on the benefits of UT (ETC or caseless ammo), I think even the current crop of UT slugthrowers competes fine with HT stuff.

One other thing: higher tech doesn't necessarily mean "more lethal." After all, weapon damage has gone down from TL6 to TL8. The standard 5.56mm NATO round is far less "lethal" and way less powerful than the older 7.62mm NATO and American .30 caliber rounds from WW2.

Lasers have Recoil 1, high RoF autofire. Blasters have a (5) armor divisor. Plasma weapons do insane damage. Antimatter particle beams do lots of nasty things.

I guess I just don't see the superiority of TL7-8 weapons...and I think it's a bit of a strawman to use some of the crazy ammo types in HT. They simply aren't widespread. How many APFSDU rounds are made for AK-47s? None, as far as I know. THe vast majority of military bullets are simple FMJ--fancy ammo is expensive.

What I'm saying is that IF there was a revised UT weapon table supplement, I wouldn't want to see a vast increase in weapon damage just for the sake of making UT "more powerful" than HT...
The problem with UT weapons isn't really that their damage is so low. It's that there are options to make the slugthrowers way too powerful, compared to the Gauss weapons. Also, they don't make use of a lot of features of the HT weapons.
Langy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 01:46 PM   #29
vicky_molokh
GURPS FAQ Keeper
 
vicky_molokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Kyďv, Ukraine
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by apoc527 View Post
I'm also fairly happy with UT as written compared to previous versions. The main reason is that I like the toned down weapon damage. Previous versions of UT/UT2 had weapons that were basically unusable in games unless you want a "one-hit, one-kill" style of game. It's just not fun and it's just really not gameable. It may be "realistic" and it could work if one was playing GURPS: The Sci-Fi Tactical Minis Game, but for RPGs? I prefer 4th Edition UT with weapons that are far less likely to instantly eradicate PC lifeforms.

Besides, once you tack on the benefits of UT (ETC or caseless ammo), I think even the current crop of UT slugthrowers competes fine with HT stuff.

One other thing: higher tech doesn't necessarily mean "more lethal." After all, weapon damage has gone down from TL6 to TL8. The standard 5.56mm NATO round is far less "lethal" and way less powerful than the older 7.62mm NATO and American .30 caliber rounds from WW2.

Lasers have Recoil 1, high RoF autofire. Blasters have a (5) armor divisor. Plasma weapons do insane damage. Antimatter particle beams do lots of nasty things.

I guess I just don't see the superiority of TL7-8 weapons...and I think it's a bit of a strawman to use some of the crazy ammo types in HT. They simply aren't widespread. How many APFSDU rounds are made for AK-47s? None, as far as I know. THe vast majority of military bullets are simple FMJ--fancy ammo is expensive.

What I'm saying is that IF there was a revised UT weapon table supplement, I wouldn't want to see a vast increase in weapon damage just for the sake of making UT "more powerful" than HT...
It's not about lethality. Or, more precisely, not just about it.

Assuming the renaissance of personal armour in TL9+ (that is, more so than now), weapons will focus on penetration more than wounding. This is also why I gave examples including a setup where injury levels are minimal.

The current setup, however, is weird, in that some of the TL8 ammo is just more scary than TL9+. Right now, when facing a Powered Combat Armour (TL9, DR70), it is totally appropriate to use +P (dmg×1.1, CPS×1˝) APDS ammo (AD(2), damage×1.3, Range×1˝, CPS×3, minus damage type) with an FN FAL, doing a final average of 10d(2), or 70 points of penetration on average. That means almost half the bullets will injure.
If you take the FN BAR, you can no longer rely on rapid fire, but most shots will be likely to injure. If you have a heavy machine gun team in your squad (if facing battlesuits, you definitely should), giving them the above ammo will shred the 'suits (assuming .50 Browning, KPV or Mauser).

----------------------

I'd rather see some more gameable stuff like ablative armour/shields, penetration-oriented weaponry and the like. It's what I'm gonna add to my setting, anyway.
__________________
Vicky 'Molokh', GURPS FAQ and uFAQ Keeper
The Eye of Eclipse Phase. A Discord server focusing on Roleplaying, Sci-Fi, Transhumanism, and discussion of other assorted topics, from tech to boardgames, from politics to philosophy.
vicky_molokh is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-13-2011, 01:47 PM   #30
apoc527
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Seattle, WA
Default Re: Will buy: UT2: Revised / Reworked Weapon Tables (Post-Pyramid etc.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Langy View Post
The problem with UT weapons isn't really that their damage is so low. It's that there are options to make the slugthrowers way too powerful, compared to the Gauss weapons. Also, they don't make use of a lot of features of the HT weapons.
Could you give some examples? I want to know what I need to outlaw/ban when I GM my upcoming GURPS game (which will be the first time most of my group has played GURPS). :-)

I agree that creating some varied weapon lists would be nice, but that's really a function of UT being a list of generic weapons while HT is converting many real-world firearms and there is simply a ton of variety in the real world. I think some UT fine (accurate) guns with some built in sighting aids would be helpful, but that's easy enough to do when creating a custom weapon list for any given campaign setting.

I need to compare things on a deeper level, but I didn't notice any weapon mods or accessories from HT that don't have an equivalent in UT. Hyperspectral scopes are far superior to anything in HT after all!
apoc527 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
equipment, superscience, technology, ultra-tech, weapons

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.