GURPS Tactical Shooting

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Icelander

It creates odd edge cases where it is worse to have a scope with a magnification anywhere below 8x than to use just the iron sights of a precision rifle.

That would require a few other words of verbiage to resolve and call for some fancy wording.

Not that I wouldn't have liked it included. But I'm still giddy with happiness that what seems like every other suggestion we made is there in the final text. This is truly the best GURPS book I have seen and the ways in which it will enhance any game using realistic gameplay are literally legion.

Max precision aiming bonus is half Acc (round down) or Scope bonus, whichever is higher? MoA from Harsh Realism for Tactical Shooters (pg. 32) applies an upper bound if desired?

[Icelander]

In other news, there is a typo on p. 33 in a reference to the 'Situational Awareness' rules in the 'Threat Recognisation' section, under 'Focused: White'. The -4 penalty for 'free action' Situational Awareness checks is referenced, but mistakingly given as only -2.

I have reported this by e-mail through the proper errata channels. Just wanted to save everyone else the trouble of writing it up too.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

Max precision aiming bonus is half Acc (round down) or Scope bonus, whichever is higher? MoA from Harsh Realism for Tactical Shooters (pg. 32) applies an upper bound if desired?

Something like that.

Though your way fails to prevent other edge cases, which the Acc or Scope, whichever is lower, limit was set to counter. With your wording, you would be equally well off using an Acc 1 pistol with a 16x scope as you would be with an Acc 6 sniper rifle, as in both cases, the bonusf for the scope would take precedence.

This can be worded to prevent this, but my point was that it was actually non-trivial to change the rules here and it would probably require several lines of text to prevent any unintended consequences.

[Anthony]

Realistically, weapons should probably just have a maximum effective skill, which is determined by either visual acuity or weapon accuracy, whichever is less. The limit of visual targeting with 20:20 vision is about 1 MOA (modified skill of around 28), because the eye's resolution is about 1 arc-minute.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Something like that.

Though your way fails to prevent other edge cases, which the Acc or Scope, whichever is lower, limit was set to counter. With your wording, you would be equally well off using an Acc 1 pistol with a 16x scope as you would be with an Acc 6 sniper rifle, as in both cases, the bonusf for the scope would take precedence.

I see what you mean. Rereading the PT files, I like your division of base acc and aiming aids.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Realistically, weapons should probably just have a maximum effective skill, which is determined by either visual acuity or weapon accuracy, whichever is less. The limit of visual targeting with 20:20 vision is about 1 MOA (modified skill of around 28), because the eye's resolution is about 1 arc-minute.

Originally Posted by Harsh Realism for Tactical Shooters, GURPS Tactical Shooting p. 32

Minute of Angle: Every firearm has a dispersion, no matter how well fixed or braced. At high skill, the weapon may
be the limiting factor in a shot. Effective skill before penalties for speed, range, and size can’t exceed 22 + (2 ¥ Acc), including the Acc bonus from match ammo.

You want shootin' realism? We got shootin' realism!

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Realistically, weapons should probably just have a maximum effective skill, which is determined by either visual acuity or weapon accuracy, whichever is less. The limit of visual targeting with 20:20 vision is about 1 MOA (modified skill of around 28), because the eye's resolution is about 1 arc-minute.

How would that be different from the rule on page 32?

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

How would that be different from the rule on page 32?

The addition of a limit for visual processing of the target.

[Crakkerjakk]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

How would that be different from the rule on page 32?

The one on pg.32 doesn't take into account the shooters vision. It's only considering the weapon, not what the shooter can see.

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Crakkerjakk

The one on pg.32 doesn't take into account the shooters vision. It's only considering the weapon, not what the shooter can see.

That's correct. When I came up with this concept, I looked at the ability for a weapon of a given Acc to hit a circular target at range, and the 22+2xAcc formula fit the data the best.

So Crakkerjakk is exactly right; it assumes you can see the target perfectly, and basically this is a limit on the mechanical accuracy of the firearm. I'm not sure how much imperfect vision would impact you; probably pretty directly, but in a game-useful way it's probably abstracted into "do you see them or not."

If you make your vision roll, you're probably assumed to see pretty well what you are looking at. It's kinda binary. If we were to say "success by X" means you have perfect acquisition, "fail" means you don't see it at all, and intermediate would be a penalty to your roll.